GNU C Library Looking To Drop FSF Copyright Assignment Policy

[sdack]

First they kick out the man who made all of this possible now they shitting on his life achievement.

It is not more than a change in generations, and future generations will reiterate and remember. It has always been this way and it will happen with Torvalds and others, too. Ignore the "heavy ink" and "hot air". Only meaningful change will last and after a while will everyone see the good in it, or it only fades away again.

[jabl]

Huh? For small-time contributors, is there even anything to do?

Yes? Back when I did my contributor agreement to a GNU project, I had to contact one of the GNU staff, who sent me the copyright assignment forms via snail mail, I had to sign them and send them back, and wait for, IIRC, a month or so for the paperwork to be processed.

You're not going to get much drive-by contributions with a process like that.

And sure, for companies it's even worse as you have to get the lawyers to sign off on it.

[Ironmask]

WTF is this? Is it some kind of internet meme copypasta?

It might be amusing for those who know the real history, but it's just going to confuse the heck out of people who don't.


Dude, the FSF wrote gcc, ld, libc, among many other tools and libs.

Whatever you think about Stallman and Emacs, a UNIX OS ain't shit without userspace tools or a C compiler. That's what FSF contributed, besides their GPL for the kernel.

I'm no fan of Stallman, but this turd should've been left in 2015.

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you’re referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.

Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called “Linux”, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project. There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use.

Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine’s resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called “Linux” distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.

[coder]

Pray tell, WHICH "Unix OS" was based on FSF-copyrighted stuff? macOS? AIX? Solaris? z/OS? Lots of wishful thinking there...

Um, exactly what is wishful thinking?

Linux and GNU's Hurd are as far from Unix as biplane is from a jet fighter.

Linux is a UNIX-like OS kernel, in terms of its device model, its privilege model, its directory structure, its filesystem model, and countless other details. This is no accident, because it was originally written as yet-another UNIX clone. Sure, it has definitely grown and evolved, but it roots are still clear enough to qualify it as a UNIX-like OS.

Anyway, this nit-picking over semantics is missing the point. Linux wouldn't have been shit without the stuff contributed by the FSF. And its kernel being GPL has had profound effects on its evolution.

My only point is that the troll post by Ironmask was as overly dismissive of the value of FSF's contributions as it is overstating Stallman's control and influence over Linux and GPL software.

[coder]

What you’re referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux,

You just posted that shit just so you could rebut it?

I was trying to make the same basic points about FSF's contributions, but I guess I fell into your little trap. Won't happen again.

Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine’s resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called “Linux” distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.

1. With each passing year, the GNU part is an ever-smaller proportion of a GNU/Linux installation.
2. Android uses Linux with almost none of the GNU.

As much as I acknowledge the critical role of the FSF in the early success of Linux, I also think they will play an ever smaller role in its future.

[andyprough]

From the article:

especially as more developers try to distance themselves from the Free Software Foundation

I find this oddly amusing. They want the benefits of a fork without any of the responsibilities.

[Ironmask]

You just posted that shit just so you could rebut it?

I was trying to make the same basic points about FSF's contributions, but I guess I fell into your little trap. Won't happen again.

1. With each passing year, the GNU part is an ever-smaller proportion of a GNU/Linux installation.
2. Android uses Linux with almost none of the GNU.

As much as I acknowledge the critical role of the FSF in the early success of Linux, I also think they will play an ever smaller role in its future.

You are kidding arent you ?
Are you saying that this linux can run on a computer without windows underneath it, at all ? As in, without a boot disk, without any drivers, and without any services ?

That sounds preposterous to me.

If it were true (and I doubt it), then companies would be selling computers without a windows. This clearly is not happening, so there must be some error in your calculations. I hope you realise that windows is more than just Office ? Its a whole system that runs the computer from start to finish, and that is a very difficult thing to acheive. A lot of people dont realise this.

Microsoft just spent $9 billion and many years to create Vista, so it does not sound reasonable that some new alternative could just snap into existence overnight like that. It would take billions of dollars and a massive effort to achieve. IBM tried, and spent a huge amount of money developing OS/2 but could never keep up with Windows. Apple tried to create their own system for years, but finally gave up recently and moved to Intel and Microsoft.

Its just not possible that a freeware like the Linux could be extended to the point where it runs the entire computer fron start to finish, without using some of the more critical parts of windows. Not possible.

I think you need to re-examine your assumptions.

[coder]

You are kidding arent you ?

Somehow, I don't think I'm the one playing round, here.

That sounds preposterous to me.

Exactly. I'm done trying to parse through your shit.

I hope you realise that windows is more than just Office ?

I installed Windows 3.1 from floppy disks and launched it from DOS. I wrote assembly language and used software interrupts to invoke DOS and BIOS services. And I first ran GNU/Linux 0.9.1 on a 386. I won't even go into all the various hardware and software I've seen the insides of. So, you quite frankly have no idea what I realise.

IBM tried, and spent a huge amount of money developing OS/2 but could never keep up with Windows.

OS/2 worked fine. Its downfall was when Microsoft sued over its Windows emulation and won. Without Windows-compatibility, there wouldn't be nearly enough software for it, so IBM shutdown development almost immediately after that.

Apple tried to create their own system for years, but finally gave up recently and moved to Intel and Microsoft.

Thanks for that. Now I know you're either completely nuts or just really fucking with me. Either way, we're done.

I think you need to re-examine your assumptions.

Yup, and done.

[tildearrow]

Apple tried to create their own system for years, but finally gave up recently and moved to Intel and Microsoft.

"Recently"? Are you in 2006?

Apple has already deployed another in-house system (Apple M1) and have been moving away from standards since 2012.

[BesiegedAce]

coder, tildearrow, it's various copypastas.

Anyways, no, Richard, it's 'Linux', not 'GNU/Linux'. The most important contributions that the FSF made to Linux were the creation of the GPL and the GCC compiler. Those are fine and inspired products. GCC is a monumental achievement and has earned you, RMS, and the Free Software Foundation countless kudos and much appreciation.
Following are some reasons for you to mull over, including some already answered in your FAQ.

One guy, Linus Torvalds, used GCC to make his operating system (yes, Linux is an OS -- more on this later). He named it 'Linux' with a little help from his friends. Why doesn't he call it GNU/Linux? Because he wrote it, with more help from his friends, not you. You named your stuff, I named my stuff -- including the software I wrote using GCC -- and Linus named his stuff. The proper name is Linux because Linus Torvalds says so. Linus has spoken. Accept his authority. To do otherwise is to become a nag. You don't want to be known as a nag, do you?

(An operating system) != (a distribution). Linux is an operating system. By my definition, an operating system is that software which provides and limits access to hardware resources on a computer. That definition applies whereever you see Linux in use. However, Linux is usually distributed with a collection of utilities and applications to make it easily configurable as a desktop system, a server, a development box, or a graphics workstation, or whatever the user needs. In such a configuration, we have a Linux (based) distribution. Therein lies your strongest argument for the unwieldy title 'GNU/Linux' (when said bundled software is largely from the FSF). Go bug the distribution makers on that one. Take your beef to Red Hat, Mandrake, and Slackware. At least there you have an argument. Linux alone is an operating system that can be used in various applications without any GNU software whatsoever. Embedded applications come to mind as an obvious example.
Next, even if we limit the GNU/Linux title to the GNU-based Linux distributions, we run into another obvious problem. XFree86 may well be more important to a particular Linux installation than the sum of all the GNU contributions. More properly, shouldn't the distribution be called XFree86/Linux? Or, at a minimum, XFree86/GNU/Linux? Of course, it would be rather arbitrary to draw the line there when many other fine contributions go unlisted. Yes, I know you've heard this one before. Get used to it. You'll keep hearing it until you can cleanly counter it.

You seem to like the lines-of-code metric. There are many lines of GNU code in a typical Linux distribution. You seem to suggest that (more LOC) == (more important). However, I submit to you that raw LOC numbers do not directly correlate with importance. I would suggest that clock cycles spent on code is a better metric. For example, if my system spends 90% of its time executing XFree86 code, XFree86 is probably the single most important collection of code on my system. Even if I loaded ten times as many lines of useless bloatware on my system and I never excuted that bloatware, it certainly isn't more important code than XFree86. Obviously, this metric isn't perfect either, but LOC really, really sucks. Please refrain from using it ever again in supporting any argument.
Last, I'd like to point out that we Linux and GNU users shouldn't be fighting among ourselves over naming other people's software. But what the heck, I'm in a bad mood now. I think I'm feeling sufficiently obnoxious to make the point that GCC is so very famous and, yes, so very useful only because Linux was developed. In a show of proper respect and gratitude, shouldn't you and everyone refer to GCC as 'the Linux compiler'? Or at least, 'Linux GCC'? Seriously, where would your masterpiece be without Linux? Languishing with the HURD?

If there is a moral buried in this rant, maybe it is this:
Be grateful for your abilities and your incredible success and your considerable fame. Continue to use that success and fame for good, not evil. Also, be especially grateful for Linux' huge contribution to that success. You, RMS, the Free Software Foundation, and GNU software have reached their current high profiles largely on the back of Linux. You have changed the world. Now, go forth and don't be a nag.
Thanks for listening.