Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 10 Jan 2003 04:44:18 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 10 Jan 2003 04:44:18 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]:30848 "EHLO fencepost.gnu.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 10 Jan 2003 04:44:07 -0500 From: Richard Stallman To: jalvo@mbay.net Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-reply-to: (message from John Alvord on Thu, 09 Jan 2003 00:57:49 -0800) Subject: Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" Reply-to: rms@gnu.org References: <010101c2b786$794d87a0$0200a8c0@wsl3> Message-Id: Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 04:52:50 -0500 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1264 Lines: 26 If there was an ATT/Linux and an Intel/Linux, having a GNU/Linux would make some sense... but that is not the way it is. GNU/Linux is singular, so Linux makes a reasonable contraction. It would be reasonable, if not for the fact that it gives the wrong idea of who developed the system and--above all--why. Another puzzling aspect to me is that GNU really goes beyond what I think of as an operating system. I have a suite of GNU tools installed on a Windows NT machine and I use make, ls, cp, mv all day. So I am using GNU on a foreign operating system... or does my usage needs to be labeled as GNU/Windows NT? The tools are just a part of the GNU software packages, which is only part of the GNU system. And underneath those tools would be another entire operating system, entirely different from GNU. All in all, that's a very different situation from GNU/Linux. We wouldn't call it "GNU/Windows". (I'm going to add this to http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html; thanks.) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/