Free This Mailing List! (was Re: GNU discussion (was re:Free your phone))

[Declan Naughton]

On 1/24/07, David Schlesinger <david.schlesinger at palmsource.com> wrote:
> On 1/24/07 11:03 AM, "Declan Naughton" <piratepenguin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 1/24/07, David Schlesinger <david.schlesinger at palmsource.com> wrote:
> >> On 1/24/07 10:20 AM, "Declan Naughton" <piratepenguin at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> As far as I am aware, OpenMoko is not using the GNU/CMU Mach kernel..
> >>
> >> No, they're certainly not. However, "GNU" _is_ and they're failing to give
> >> appropriate credit to the "principal developer" of their system. So on what
> >> basis are you demanding that OpenMoko give credit to GNU when GNU refuses to
> >> give credit to Mach...? As I've said, that's nothing more than self-serving
> >> hypocrisy.
> >
> > Where did I, or anybody else, DEMAND that OpenMoko give credit to GNU?
>
> Dave Crossland's demanded it on a couple of occasions. Go back and reread
> his latest messages, particularly his message of 6:13 am this morning.
>

Can't find anything.. If you could link me from
http://lists.openmoko.org/pipermail/community/ I'd appreciate it.

> > GNU refuse to give credit to Mach? They only call the microkernel GNU *MACH*!
>
> No, this is _absconding_ with credit which belongs to someone else,
> specifically the CMU Mach team; naming someone else's work after yourself
> doesn't constitute giving them "credit" by any reasonable stretch of the
> imagination. GNU simply took advantage of the unlicensed state of Mach,
> relicensed it unilaterally under the GPL and re-christened it.
>
> If GNU's contribution to "GNU/Linux" is significant enough to merit endless
> discussion of giving them credit on mailing lists which are dedicated to
> other topics, why is CMU's contribution to "GNU" (so-called) not given equal
> shrift? Why this "Oh, I'll ask about it..." hand-waving? Does your
> commitment to "freedom" only extend to efforts on behalf of the FSF...?

I looked into it, a bit. GNU forked Mach 4, creating GNU _Mach_.
I don't get your problem.. Also (from a GNU/Hurd developer) "Not to
mention that we never try to discredit CMU for the work they did" and
"If we called Mach for Hcam or something then such a argument might
have a point" and "For example, by calling GNU for `Linux' you
discredit the GNU project by insinuating that Linus et al wrote GNU".

My "commitment to freedom" I would well say does extend past the
efforts of the FSF.

> Let GNU resolve their own issues with giving appropriate credit before you
> start insisting that others do the same for GNU.

Again, *I* am not insisting on anything.

-- 
Declan Naughton