Well, it looks that my original post on the Linux vs GNU/Linux issue has made a ghostly return. This time, it has shown up on Free Software Daily. The description of the article is also a little amusing:
“This guy thinks that the “GNU” part of the term GNU/Linux is derived from the GNU GPL being the license used for the software. Yes he’s confused. I’m posting it here so FSDaily people can go and comment.”
Wow! That’s pretty funny stuff. I’ve got people willing to “correct” me because I am “confused.”
Strangely enough, the article (or link, rather) that is found on FSDaily, does not link directly to my post, but to a comment in my post from a person who goes by the name “Dave.” Dave, you see, fought hard against my position, and posted several times, in both Part I and II. He presented the pro-GNU/Linux side of the debate very well.
I am going to assume that the person on FSDaily who has posted this is either “Dave” himself or someone who really agrees with him. Anyways, from this person’s point of view, I am confused about the fact that the GNU in GNU/Linux is derived from the GNU GPL. See below for an interesting piece from the “Evaluation” page.
According to this page which describes the requirements for GNU Project inclusion:
“A GNU program should use the latest version of the license that the GNU Project recommends–not just any free software license. For most packages, this means using the GNU GPL.”
If you read the page, you will note that there are several different requirements of a GNU application. One, of which, is the use of the GPL. Without the GPL, which license would they use? I can’t think of any… The questionare also states (near bottom of page):
This is crucial. Both the software itself *and all dependencies*
(third-party libraries, etc.) must be free software in order to be
included in GNU. Documentation should be under the GFDL.
This is interesting… So much for being “confused.”
It’s amazing what can happen if one takes a certain view. In my case, I took a position that was not as friendly to the view of the Free Software Foundation. They (the GNU/Linux supporters) couldn’t change my view. So, what’s an activist to do? Why, call the protesters! They need backup!
A bit of a dramatization, but the call for backup is clearly there, just read the description of my post on FSDaily…
What I respect is someone, who, when I give my opinion, and they disagree, replies in either a kind comment, or a respectful post on their own blog. Read this post, for a good example. I even agreed with Michael on many of the points he gives. I still do not call Linux “GNU/Linux,” but he had some very good points, and gave them kindly. What I have seen in the comments are people who are completely unwilling to try and look through the eyes of someone else’s view, and then are willing, and determined, to change my somehow confused thinking. Sure, I could delete the comments, but what good does that do? They couldn’t just disagree and leave. No, they have to change my view, so that I will effectively be “silenced” on the issue, removing any present opposition to the pro-GNU/Linux side of the debate.
Simply amazing, not to mention annoying.
UPDATE: If you are just now reading this, read the first two posts, here for Part I, and here for Part II.