http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupda...914132,00.html

On 26 Jun 2003 07:55:44 -0700, Steve <stevesusenet@yahoo.com> wrote:
cp to groups.google.com ->
--

SCO's contract dispute with IBM has been accompanied by a smear
campaign against the whole GNU/Linux system. But SCO made an obvious
mistake when it erroneously quoted me as saying that "Linux is a copy
of Unix." Many readers immediately smelled a rat--not only because I
did not say that, and not only because the person who said it was
talking about published ideas (which are uncopyrightable) rather than
code, but because they know I would never compare Linux with Unix.

Unix is a complete operating system, but Linux is just part of one.
SCO is using the popular confusion between Linux and the GNU/Linux
system to magnify the fear that it can spread. GNU/Linux is the GNU
operating system running with Linux as the kernel. The kernel is the
part of the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other
programs you run. That part is Linux.

We developed GNU starting in 1984 as a campaign for freedom, whose aim
was to eliminate non-free software from our lives. GNU is free software,
meaning that users are free to run it, study it and change it (or pay
programmers to do this for them), redistribute it (gratis or for a fee),
and publish modified versions.
(See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/the-gnu-project.html.)

In 1991, GNU was mostly finished, lacking only a kernel. In 1992, Linus
Torvalds made his kernel, Linux, free software. Others combined GNU and
Linux to produce the first complete free operating system, GNU/Linux.
(See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html.) GNU/Linux is also free
software, and SCO made use of this freedom by selling their version of it.
Today, GNU runs with various kernels including Linux, the GNU Hurd
(our kernel), and the NetBSD kernel. It is basically the same system,
whichever kernel you use.

Those who combined Linux with GNU didn't recognize that's what they were
doing, and they spoke of the combination as "Linux." The confusion spread;
many users and journalists call the whole system "Linux." Since they
also properly call the kernel "Linux," the result is even more confusion:
when a statement says "Linux," you can only guess what software it refers
to. SCO's irresponsible statements are shot through with ambiguous
references to "Linux." It is impossible to attribute any coherent meaning
to them overall, but they appear to accuse the entire GNU/Linux system of
being copied from Unix.

The name GNU stands for "GNU's Not Unix." The whole point of developing
the GNU system is that it is not Unix. Unix is and always was non-free
software, meaning that it denies its users the freedom to cooperate and
to control their computers. To use computers in freedom as a community,
we needed a free software operating system. We did not have the money to
buy and liberate an existing system, but we did have the skill to write
a new one. Writing GNU was a monumental job. We did it for our freedom,
and your freedom.

To copy Unix source code would not be ethically wrong, but it is illegal;
our work would fail to give users lawful freedom to cooperate if it were
not done lawfully. To make sure we would not copy Unix source code or
write anything similar, we told GNU contributors not even to look at Unix
source code while developing code for GNU. We also suggested design
approaches that differ from typical Unix design approaches, to ensure our
code would not resemble Unix code. We did our best to avoid ever copying
Unix code, despite our basic premise that to prohibit copying of software
is morally wrong.

Another SCO tool of obfuscation is the term "intellectual property." This
fashionable but foolish term carries an evident bias: that the right way
to treat works, ideas, and names is as a kind of property. Less evident
is the harm it does by inciting simplistic thinking: it lumps together
diverse laws--copyright law, patent law, trademark law and others--which
really have little in common. This leads people to suppose those laws are
one single issue, the "intellectual property issue," and think about
"it"--which means, to think at such a broad abstract level that the
specific social issues raised by these various laws are not even visible.
Any "opinion about intellectual property" is thus bound to be foolish.
(See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html.)

In the hands of a propagandist for increased copyright or patent powers,
the term is a way to prevent clear thinking. In the hands of someone
making threats, the term is a tool for obfuscation: "We claim we can
sue you over something, but we won't say what it is."

In an actual lawsuit, such ambiguity would make their case fail, or
even prevent it from getting off the ground. If, however, SCO's aim
is to shake the tree and see if any money falls down, or simply to
spread fear, they may regard vagueness and mystery as advantageous.

I cannot prognosticate about the SCO vs IBM lawsuit itself: I don't
know what was in their contract, I don't know what IBM did, and I am
not a lawyer. The Free Software Foundation's lawyer, Professor Moglen,
believes that SCO gave permission for the community's use of the code
that they distributed under the GNU GPL and other free software
licenses in their version of GNU/Linux.

However, I can address the broader issue of such situations. In a
community of over half a million developers, we can hardly expect
that there will never be plagiarism. But it is no disaster; we discard
that material and move on. If there is material in Linux that was
contributed without legal authorization, the Linux developers will
learn what it is and replace it. SCO cannot use its copyrights, or
its contracts with specific parties, to suppress the lawful
contributions of thousands of others. Linux itself is no longer
essential: the GNU system became popular in conjunction with Linux,
but today it also runs with two BSD kernels and the GNU kernel. Our
community cannot be defeated by this.

--
Copyright 2003 Richard Stallman. Verbatim copying and redistribution of
this entire article are permitted without royalty in any medium provided
this notice is preserved.

Sam Richards <me@privacy.net> writes:

No, if Linux had not happened, he'd be a nobody. Probably. Linux (as in
The Os, not The Kernel) wouldn't have happened without the GPL. Well,
there would have been BSD...



Jochem

--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take
away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Sam Richards <me@privacy.net> writes:

I'm not sure that's the case at all. From what I can tell, there is
little egotistical behavior present with RMS. Richard M. Stallman,
from the very beginning, merely wanted to preserve the software
freedoms that he felt should be available.

Historical accounts indicate that RMS was bothered by the fact that a
certain printer driver did not have freely available source code, so
that he could make some simple modifications to the printer status
indicators. It seemed that in his office, which had some really fast
printers, it was common for the printer to get clogged and lots of
jobs to back up, without giving much, if any, notice to users at their
desks about what was going on. Richard sought to change that, only to
find out that the guy who created the code was unwilling to share it,
and his company wanted to protect what they felt was their
"intellectual property".

Do you remember seeing mention of "intellectual property" in Richard's
message? That's what this is all about. The story I relayed above is
but one of many that Richard experienced as he worked at the
M.I.T. Artificial Intelligence Labs in Cambridge, MA. At one time,
extremely bright software researchers were able to freely share code
and ideas. Richard saw all of that dwindle before his own eyes, and
was bent on doing something about it, and made it his lifelong
pursuit.

Now there may be an element of Stallman wanting to get some credit
where credit is due, but look at the facts. He and a small array of
talented professionals spent ten years (now nearly twenty years)
developing some really solid tools, beginning with an editor, (Emacs)
a compiler, (gcc), then a whole range of commands and utilities to
completely replace UNIX software, hence the name Gnu's NOT UNIX.

About all they had left to do was to write a kernel. That work was
beginning right about the same time that Linus Torvalds began his work
on his own Linux kernel. The rest of the system (or at least the main
components) are actually GNU software, not Linux, not something else.
Commercial vendors and individuals create collections of software
called distributions, that piece together customized Linux kernels, an
assortment of GNU system and application programs, and then create
their own installation and configuration tools.

Richard may be accused of being a stickler on this, but when 75% or
more of the actual work comes from projects that were initiated from
the GNU ideas, is it too much to ask that they include at least an
acknowledgement that those parts contain GNU software? In fact, if
you look at them carefully, the licenses do that. It's my opinion
that this is not an egotistical response from Stallman, he just
doesn't want to see the ideas of software freedom get dwindled into
some other thing. That's why he's against calling it all "Open Source
Software", even though upwards of 90% of the concepts are in agreement
with the ideas of "Free Software". It's just that the one area where
they disagree happens to be the thing that perhaps matters most of all
to Richard, and that's the need to vigorously maintain software
freedom as he sees it.

Now people can disagree with Richard on this point, and they do. He
still works with so-called Open Source people and collaborates on
projects without agreeing 100% on everything. I don't see anything
egotistical at all about someone who vigorously and vehemently adheres
to what they believe in. I doubt that I agree with either Richard or
anyone else in all areas, whether they pertain to software or to life
in general. What I can say is that I have great respect for
individuals who devote their life to something they deeply believe in,
and consistently make choices that agree with those beliefs. How many
of us can honestly say that we unwaveringly do that much? In that way
alone, if for no other reason, I think that Richard is someone who is
a great role model for others to examine.

Ego? There may be one in their somewhere. Somehow, I believe that's
the least of the things that concern the gentleman we are discussing
today. I don't think that Torvalds is a big ego-head, either. Both
men do what they do because it's their life's passion. They do it
with all their energy, and whether they have a big head or not,
they've achieved more of what they've set out to do than most of us
combined. So if any of them occasionally get bloated in the head
(which I question), then I certainly forgive them, should that be the
case. Would I have a big head if I got a lot of attention? I hope
not, but who knows? Power or a sense of power does weird things to
the mind. I'd be very slow to judge anyone on this matter.

--
Brian W. Masinick
mailto:masinick@yahoo.com

: Brian Masinick <masinick@yahoo.com>
: [...] hence the name Gnu's NOT UNIX.

I'd have liked it better if it'd been named GINSU, even though
that would play havoc with the animal metaphors and logos.

But it would have the advantage that, upon provocation, one could say
something like "Unix license? I don't got no Unix license. I don't got
to show you no stinkin' Unix license. GINSU is no stinking Unix!"


Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw

It is not very relevant in the SCO vs. IBM case. It's much more relevant
in the "SCO saying that the Linux operating system is tainted" case,
because Linux is not an operating system at all! If there would be real
problems for users with the Linux kernel it could be substituted with i.e.
the NetBSD kernel.

Barry Margolin <barry.margolin@level3.com> writes:

It is kind of relevant to the FUD from SCO about the Linux kernel
containing some kind of IP (code or patents) belonging to SCO. If SCO
can actually back it up, then it is important to be able to
distinguish the Linux kernel from the OS that contains a Linux
kernel.

Losing the kernel would be bad, but it is only one component of the
OS, and a component that have several pretty good free alternatives.
It would be much worse to lose e.g. X11 or GCC.

Sam Richards <me@privacy.net> writes:

Even if this was true, could you blame him?

I'm sure RMS also remembers the whole Gosling Emacs thing as well.

In anycase, RMS deserves his due credit.

--
One Editor to rule them all. One Editor to find them,
One Editor to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.

(do ((a 1 b) (b 1 (+ a b))) (nil a) (print a))

David Steuber <david.steuber@verizon.net> writes:

Oh, you can be SURE that RMS remembers the Gosling Emacs thing. In
fact, that may have been one of the final things that actually helped
RMS and the FSF develop the care and accuracy to which they develop
and license software today. There were a number of differences in
ideas when the XEmacs project first came into being, but there may
have been a possibility that at least some parts of the code in XEmacs
may have been folded into GNU Emacs, but one of the issues was a
concern over who actually wrote certain parts of the code, could there
be assurance that no part of it was commercial or encumbered in any
way. I know that there were other differences, but I think that may
have been one of the biggest stumbling blocks of all to bring the two
projects together. No need to argue over it, the Free Software
Foundation's #1 goal is to protect software freedom. I think when the
XEmacs differences came about, the sting from the Gosling issues were
still very fresh in people's mind, particularly to RMS, but probably
to others, too.

So I don't have any problem at all with the fact that the FSF protects
software freedom. I don't have any problem that others want to do
things somewhat different ways, either. I'm not particularly
enchanted with software that's entirely proprietary, though. I use it
at times, but I'd prefer to use software that's really free,
especially free from licenses that prevent it from being freely shared
with others. Therefore, when I see a chance to speak up for free
software, I try to do so. I'm starting to get better at it.

--
Brian Masinick
mailto:masinick@yahoo.com

Jochem Huhmann <joh@gmx.net> wrote:

What does BSD use for a compiler? GCC, or something else?

--
Jim Janney

In <1fx9qe0.1ac9nn91n7nyo0N%jjanney@xmission.com>, Jim Janney wrote:

gcc would be insecure -- the BSD Core Team hand-translate
every line to make sure that nothing unintended sneaks in.

--
| Microsoft: "A reputation for releasing inferior software will make |
| it more difficult for a software vendor to induce customers to pay |
| for new products or new versions of existing products." |
end

Per Abrahamsen <abraham@dina.kvl.dk> writes:

Or emacs! Losing Netscape would be bad too.

-kin

"Artis Rozentals" <artis@aaa.apollo.lv> writes:

NetBSD isn't totally standalone, the NetBSD kernel emulates
(some/all?) Linux system calls for supporting the running of
applications like netscape and realplayer in Linux emulation.

Life to a NetBSD user would be pretty boring if Linux goes away,
and its vast application support dries up.

-kin

Kin Cho <kin@techie.com> writes:

We have two emacsen, I could live with the other one.

I think mean Mozilla or gecko, Netscape is not "ours".

Losing gecko would be bad, in the ballpark of losing Linux-the-kernel,
bug again not-to-bad alternatives (KHTML) exist.

Brian Masinick wrote:

Was it really? Star/Open office, Netscape, Mozilla, W3C, KDE, all the
imaging, music, drivers, X, wine, fonts, TEX, LATEX, Apache, MySQL, a
few dozen more that don't occur to me just now? And these don't "come
from GNU ideas" just because some of them use the GPL.

When the person wanting the acknowledgement wrote a licence that denies
others the right to enforce a claim for similar acknowledgement, and
also forces people to release their own code under that licence if they
desire to contribute, then yes, that's too much to ask.

--
Ron House house@usq.edu.au
http://www.sci.usq.edu.au/staff/house

While restarting Outlook, Ron House grumbled:

You've misread the GPL gravely on this issue.

--
Rejuventate your hardware with Linux!

David Steuber <david.steuber@verizon.net> writes:

Stupid newbie question: what was the Goslong Emacs thing?
--
~/.signature

In article <84k7b3wmto.fsf@lucy.is.informatik.uni-duisburg.de>,
Kai Großjohann <kai.grossjohann@gmx.net> wrote:
I think this is the issue they're referring to:

Shortly after Unipress acquired Gosling Emacs, they claimed that the
redisplay code in GNU Emacs was copied from Gosling Emacs. RMS disagreed,
but rather than debate it and eventually end up in court, he (or someone he
delegated to) totally rewrote the redisplay module.

It was probably in need of a rewrite anyway.

--
Barry Margolin, barry.margolin@level3.com
Level(3), Woburn, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.

Barry Margolin writes:

"The GNU utilities are not part of the operating system at all. They
are mostly applications that that have been ported to run on the Linux
kernel, and which distributors often package together with it for
convenience."

Both statements are nonsense imho.

cheers
domi

Ron House <house@usq.edu.au> writes:

The success of these apps totally rely on a solid foundation of
the free high quality GNU tools such as gcc, gdb, etc... and of
course emacs!

-kin