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

[Alex Jordan]

On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 06:15:03PM -0500, J.B. Nicholson wrote:

> Alex Jordan wrote:
> > You're completely missing the above point. What Julien is saying
> > (correct me if I'm wrong) is that using "GNU" as a brand for
> > freedom-respecting operating systems is valuable even if technically
> > inaccurate.
> 
> I can't correct your understanding of what Julien said because I don't speak
> for Julien and I don't see that you sent a copy of your email to Julien so
> Julien can provide the correction you seek.

Crap! I meant to CC the list and completely forgot. Apologies. (That's
also why I said "correct me if I'm wrong" - I was assuming Julien
would see it!) CC'ing now.
 
> > In other words, you think that this wouldn't work because the steps
> > would be "put the 'GNU' moniker in the name of everything with the
> > actual GNU code, then identify things with the 'GNU' moniker in the
> > name as free." You're totally right, that wouldn't work, but that's
> > not what's being suggested.
> 
> That does not describe my views.
> 
> > What's being suggested is that we ignore where the different components
> > of the OS come from, and evaluate *only* if it's a free OS. Then if it
> > is, we put the 'GNU' moniker into the name, even if the OS doesn't
> > actually use GNU code.
> 
> There are free software OSes without GNU I would not want to call GNU
> because calling them GNU would not only be misleading but disrespectful of
> OS developers who are doing what free software activists want done. Using
> the word GNU as you describe is not only incorrect usage but could become
> deceptive. We're better off identifying what things really are and teaching
> people to value software freedom and ethical treatment for its own sake.
> This work cannot be reduced to a branding exercise nor should branding be
> given primacy.

Generally speaking I agree with you. I was just trying to explain the
idea, since there seems to have been some misunderstanding.

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature