Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S265114AbTAJP4g>; Fri, 10 Jan 2003 10:56:36 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S265211AbTAJP4g>; Fri, 10 Jan 2003 10:56:36 -0500
Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu ([128.173.14.107]:35200 "EHLO
	turing-police.cc.vt.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id <S265114AbTAJP4e>; Fri, 10 Jan 2003 10:56:34 -0500
Message-Id: <200301101605.h0AG5ALK009486@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4+dev
To: rms@gnu.org
Cc: jalvo@mbay.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 10 Jan 2003 04:52:50 EST."
             <E18WvqM-0000U7-00@fencepost.gnu.org> 
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
References: <E18WB8R-0004k9-00@fencepost.gnu.org> <010101c2b786$794d87a0$0200a8c0@wsl3> <nbdq1vo9enjh9c6gnh68mpg0ebt7n22fhi@4ax.com>
            <E18WvqM-0000U7-00@fencepost.gnu.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_-398648518P";
	 micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 11:05:10 -0500
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1795
Lines: 49

--==_Exmh_-398648518P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 04:52:50 EST, Richard Stallman said:
>      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.

OK. Enough is enough.

I have no problems with Richard Stallman espousing a particular viewpoint of
how he and/or GNU and/or the FSF feel things should be. I don't even mind *too*
much when he proselytizes said view, even when it interferes with what *my*
goals are. I even see why the FSF requires copyright assignments for code.

However, since I haven't seen any FSF paperwork for assigning *motivations*
and *thoughts* to the FSF, I don't think there is *ANY* basis in saying that
there was a single unified "WHY" a large group of people working independently
developed something.

"All your code are belong to us" is bad enough.  "All your thoughts are
belong to us" is totally over the edge.
-- 
				Valdis Kletnieks
				Computer Systems Senior Engineer
				Virginia Tech


--==_Exmh_-398648518P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001

iD8DBQE+Hu82cC3lWbTT17ARAmKhAKCVTcn8gWaPKkZfr65wcAKakiJn4wCdGmF+
Y/jhLiQZRQjSbznqGDRRZb0=
=abjw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--==_Exmh_-398648518P--
-
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/