Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
RMS actually has a social reason for his request. What is the
reason behind those who refuse?
Respect for all the other organizations and authors who have
contributed to the packages within the various Linux-based
distributions, yet who do not get credited in the name "GNU/Linux" ?
Again, circular reasoning. You're talking about GNU+Linux-based
distributions. You're absolutely correct that some don't get credited
by GNU+Linux, but how is that a logical reason to credit the smaller
contributor Linux and not the larger contributor GNU? This is covered
in the FAQ, BTW, starting at
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#many
A rare bit of honesty there:
"In 2008, we found that GNU packages made up 15% of the “main”
repository of the gNewSense GNU/Linux distribution. Linux made
up 1.5%. So the same argument would apply even more strongly
to calling it “Linux”
Why not name it something that gives the appropriate credit to the 83.5%
that has nothing to do with GNU instead of usurping the name and
pretending that GNU is necessary or even desirable in the process of
creating redistributable software? Or at least focus the credit on gcc
which has been something of a driving force because the alternatives
were expensive.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
