GNU-Darwin: Bounty hunters search for proprietary code [LWN.net]

GNU-Darwin: Bounty hunters search for proprietary code

Posted Oct 17, 2003 3:21 UTC (Fri) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link]

Because there is no such thing as the Linux distribution.

Because Debian is already doing it. Code found to be non-free goes to the non-free repository.

Because it's too easy to find non-free software e.g. in SuSE.

Because Linux wasn't "open sourced" by anybody. It was meant to be free from the beginning. Minix code is long gone.

GNU-Darwin: Bounty hunters search for proprietary code

Posted Oct 17, 2003 4:00 UTC (Fri) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link]

Because there is no such thing as the Linux distribution.

There is also no such thing as the "GNU-Darwin distribution". GNU-Darwin is a badly named package collection for Apple's Darwin OS. Indeed, the name GNU-Darwin has caused some annoyance in the BSD world: if "GNU/Linux" is somewhat unjustified, "GNU-Darwin" is wholesale stealing of credit. It is the most egregious example of GNU zealots trying to appropriate everything "free" regardless of origin. Darwin is an entire operating system not a kernel, and has nothing to do with GNU apart from the toolchain and perhaps a few userland utilities: its ancestry is BSD.

GNU-Darwin: Bounty hunters search for proprietary code

Posted Oct 17, 2003 4:18 UTC (Fri) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]

GNU-Darwin is a Darwin distro, the word "GNU" being used similar to the "RedHat" in "RedHat Linux". The full name is "The GNU-Darwin Distribution".

GNU-Darwin: Bounty hunters search for proprietary code

Posted Oct 17, 2003 13:07 UTC (Fri) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link]

Sorry, that does not cut it. Red Hat combines the linux kernel with all the other bits and pieces required to make a full-fledged OS. (Other Liux distributors do the same but make slightly differing choices with the bits and pieces.) "GNU-Darwin" has taken the complete and functioning Darwin OS, slapped on a modified FreeBSD ports and packages system, and put a GNU tag on the result. That's appalling behaviour, whichever way you cut it, though all the licences concerned may allow it. It is as if I took FreeBSD, made some minor changes to its ports system, and called the result "GNU-FreeBSD".

GNU-Darwin: Bounty hunters search for proprietary code

Posted Oct 17, 2003 14:37 UTC (Fri) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]

Ok, I'd be out of my depth if I were to debate the content of the CDs, but there are other things to consider.

From the gnu-darwin.org website, it seems the goal of the project is to make a Darwin-like/based distro that is as close to the GNU ideals as possible. So the name could have been chosen to express the content and direction of the distro. Compared to most FreeOS distros, this one is pretty new, maybe in time it's maintainers intend to make it increasingly GNU-ish. The name would then be reasonable, because it would exist for future backwards-compatibility. (should they call it Free-Darwin now, and have to rename it when it is acceptably GNU-ish?)

I don't have the grounding to defend the GNU-Darwin projecteers. But I will point out that it's probably not as black-and-white as you make it out to be. You are afterall, a serial GNU-basher, just as I am a serial GNU-defender.

GNU-Darwin: Bounty hunters search for proprietary code

Posted Oct 17, 2003 15:39 UTC (Fri) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link]

Denying that "GNU/Linux" is legitimate doesn't make me a GNU basher. They've done incredibly good work and the entire free software world, including the BSD's and the rest, are indebted to them. It's just that their claim of "Linux" being a kernel added to a GNU system is over the top. I'm not sure what connection the FSF has with GNU-Darwin; I think the FSF should be careful about how people use the GNU name. Unfortunately, RMS's egotistical tendencies probably lead him to feel flattered rather than question the correctness of the name.

As for Free-Darwin, that implies that Darwin as provided by Apple is not free. But the FSF's own web site says that the APSL v2 is a free software licence. That page mentions GNU-Darwin, though such a name is no more justified than "GNU/BSD" which RMS himself agrees "would not fit the situation".

(If they placed a Darwin kernel on top of, say, a Debian userland, then "GNU/Darwin" may be somewhat justified, at least to the same extent as "GNU/Linux". But that is not at all what they are doing.)

GNU-Darwin: Bounty hunters search for proprietary code

Posted Oct 17, 2003 17:39 UTC (Fri) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]

Apologies for the "GNU-basher" comment, I drew incorrect conclusions.

AFAIK, this is the first interaction between FSF and GNU-Darwin other than FSF linking to the GNU-Darwin site in it's "Links to other collections of Free Software" section.

FSF don't have a trademark on "GNU", they thought about it but didn't persue it, not sure why. This has caused mild confusion before relating to a program called gnutella which was nothing to do with The GNU Project.

I agree with your issue regarding the name "Free-Darwin". Cleary the GNU-Darwin folk want to state their direction explicity, I'm trying to think of a more accurate name, but haven't come up with anything yet. Another project have made a similar mistake in calling their system "OpenDarwin". "Fink" sidestepped the issue with a random name.

I'll contact the project leader and ask him to make a clearer statement/explanation regarding the name and direction on the "about" page or the front page.

GNU-Debian?

Posted Oct 17, 2003 8:58 UTC (Fri) by danielpf (subscriber, #4723) [Link]

> Because Debian is already doing it.

Why RMS is not insisting to prepend GNU to Debian?

To many the pretention of RMS to dictate others how to name
software appears childish and counterproductive.

GNU-Debian?

Posted Oct 17, 2003 9:21 UTC (Fri) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]

> Why RMS is not insisting to prepend GNU to Debian?

He can't insist or dictate, he can only ask. He can't decide the name of a distribution, his request is that people use "GNU/Linux" when refering to the OS, and "Linux" when refering to the kernel.

Some people try to convince others that he is just being childish, some people think calling the OS "Linux" is counterproductive since the whole point of the OS was to give users freedom, but the term "Linux" doesn't do a good job of informing people about the freedoms they receive.

(see the comments to the previous story "Leader of the Free World (Wired)", for the longer version)

GNU-Debian?

Posted Oct 17, 2003 11:42 UTC (Fri) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link]

Why RMS is not insisting to prepend GNU to Debian?

Probably because it's already there... Debian calls itself "Debian GNU/Linux".

To many the pretention of RMS to dictate others how to name software appears childish and counterproductive.

While I agree with your ultimate conclusion, the way you state it isn't fair.

RMS does have a point. The Linux kernel by itself is amazing, but wouldn't be usable. What made it usable was all the various GNU utilities. Yes, nowadays, there's many other things that have been added as well, and it wouldn't be nearly as usable as it is without (depending on who you are) XFree86, Apache, Sendmail, OpenOffice.org, Gnome, KDE, and a host of other things. But the lower level utilities were all the GNU utilities, and in the days long before anybody had thought of OOo, before Apache came out, it was those that allowed the Linux kernel to be used together with a computer to make a system that could some Unix things.

So, historically, there's something to be said for RMS' point.

On the other hand, names are names. There are still some people who are grouchy that citizens of the United States are called "Americans" and that the USA is called "America", because technically it's not right; there's an awful lot more to America than the USA. However, it's become accepted usage, and the rest of the world knows what you're talking about. At this point, fighting that just marginalizes yourself and makes people with more serious things to worry about tune you out.

Similarly, RMS should recognize that even though his position is right, his battle is long, long, long lost. People are going to call the system "Linux". He would be MUCH better off just accpeting that, even if he doesn't like it, and continuing to fight for freedom in software. As it is, by remaining a stickler for terminology in a battle he can't win, all he does any more is alienate those who should be seeing him as one of their staunchest allies. It is childish of him to refuse to cede this point. He is refusing to give up on a single, ultimately very minor battle, and as such is pushing away huge numbers of allies that will be needed to win the war.

You are very unfair in stating that RMS is pretentious and wants to dicated to others how to name software. It's software ultimately created by an organization being set up by him whose name he is trying to influence. But I do agree that at this point he is being counterproductive in not giving that up.

-Rob

GNU-Debian

Posted Oct 18, 2003 10:16 UTC (Sat) by danielpf (subscriber, #4723) [Link]

While I understand all these historical issues and the strong contribution of RMS and GNU software to the success of free software, I regret that clever and educated persons skilled not only about software but also on legal and societal topics do not seem to grasp that the naming process is to be taken at a completely different psychological level that the one adopted.

Naming, be it for commercial, political, and else topics, is a highly subjective process in which the word soundings, connotations, play a decisive role. "Linux" sounds better, is more direct, and appears less bizarre than the suboptimal "GNU/Linux": an irrational but important reason why people choose to use it. People don't care about "right" or "wrong", they adopt whatever names sounds good. In the general press "Linux" now connotates free software and the FSF much better that "GNU", "emacs", "gcc" or "Debian". "Debian" sounds good though, and could become more popular in the future.

GNU-Debian?

Posted Oct 17, 2003 22:02 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

> Why RMS is not insisting to prepend GNU to Debian?

There are no need. Official name of Debian is "Debian GNU/Linux".

By the way Debian is real example which shows what exactly RMS talks about when he says "Linux is only kernel": there are "Debian GNU/Linux", "Debian GNU/Hurd", "Debian GNU/NetBSD" and "Debian GNU/FreeBSD".

So everything is named just like RMS asks and it's not just theory but hard fact: the same GNU system is ported to four different kernels (three out of four are experimental, though) by Debian team.

Self-contradictory

Posted Oct 20, 2003 14:43 UTC (Mon) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]

> GNU isn't public domain, therefore it can NOT be non-proprietary

Similarly, others use the same argument to say that it's not free. The imperfection of english is well known, people can only do their best.

The Free Software movement chose to call non-Free software "proprietary". The meaning is subjectve, or defined by context. There can be no legally correct word that covers what is meant when the free software community say "proprietary software".

15 years later, a new movement decided they wanted it changed to "closed source". Unfortunately this is a far worse term. M$ Shared Source is "open" , but openness isn't the point. Permission to use/change/share is the point. You need special permission to use/change/share other peoples property. Accepting the previous paragraph, I think proprietary is a good term for what is meant. It's not legally accurate, but it carrys a reasonable indication about how it treats it's users.

Whether we like the term or not, we know what it means, and we know it's not legally binding. If you have a better name, post it here. If it can stand up to reasonable debate, maybe RMS would be interested in using it.

Self-contradictory

Posted Oct 20, 2003 14:51 UTC (Mon) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]

The word "proprietary" is derived from the word "property", and indeed, that is its legal meaning.

Linux (the kernel) as a whole IS the property of Linus (yes I know other people own bits of it ...).

All the word "proprietary" means is "is the property of someone". Therefore, if it isn't proprietary (in a legal sense) it must be public domain - which Linux sure as hell ain't!!!

By using "proprietary" to mean "closed source", you are merely abusing the word as per the Microsoft definition (look at your history - it WAS Microsoft that changed the accepted meaning of the word ...)

Cheers,
Wol

Self-contradictory

Posted Oct 25, 2003 19:29 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]

Linux (the kernel) as a whole IS the property of Linus (yes I know other people own bits of it ...).

That's a bit understated. Linus owns a minority of the Linux kernel he distributes. And it doesn't make a lot of sense to talk about the kernel as a whole as property. There are large chunks of it in which Linus couldn't claim any property rights at all.