Re: [libreplanet-discuss] What do you think about calling free systems as "GNU" systems (even if there is no GNU or Linux-libre)?

[J.B. Nicholson]

Fabio Pesari wrote:
> I think this happens too often, and saying GNU without anything else
> reinforces the notion that the only thing the FSF cares about is getting
> credited for something they didn't completely build.

Most operating systems include software the distributors didn't write 
themselves. Apple's MacOS is built on top of a BSD variant which Apple 
programmers did not write. MacOS development software from Apple included 
(perhaps still does) GCC, a compiler NeXT eventually contributed to[1] but 
did not write themselves. Variants of Microsoft Windows included games that 
Microsoft licensed for distribution but didn't write such as the Pinball 
game written by Cinematronics[2]. The Commodore 64 came with BASIC licensed 
from Microsoft[3]. Putting together an OS from programs one can legally 
distribute is commonplace. This doesn't take anything away from the efforts 
of the OS developers. We should give OS developers credit for their work by 
using the name they chose. We should also seek to give credit to the major 
components of the system, so we should call Linux a kernel and avoid 
calling Linux something it isn't and never was -- an operating system.

> I think we should find a neutral name for all operating systems (with
> any free kernel, from Linux to FreeDOS to *BSD) that are free as in
> freedom.

The irony of these examples is that Linus Torvalds' fork of Linux (as 
opposed to the GNU Linux-libre fork) contains nonfree software. In fact 
that's the significant difference between Torvalds' Linux and GNU 
Linux-libre -- GNU Linux-libre omits the nonfree software thus creating a 
Linux kernel one can not only run in freedom but distribute and fully 
comply with the GNU GPL version 2's requirement for distributing complete 
corresponding source code. Good luck getting complete corresponding source 
code to those binary blobs that come with Torvalds' Linux kernel.

As I understand it, multiple BSD variants come with nonfree software in 
their systems as well. The pushover licenses they're distributed under 
don't require distributing free software.

> (Yes, I'm half joking in case you didn't realize, but perhaps this
> really is the best solution)

I don't think that's compatible with trying to get people to call things by 
their proper names.


[1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinematronics,_LLC
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_BASIC