just curious: why no mention of GNU?

[Dmitriy Kropivnitskiy]

So, basically, since GNU project is the proud owner of the
implementation of libc and a few utilities used by most linux
distributions, they feel that they have enough leverage to bully people
into inserting their name into any project they desire. As far as I know
Linux did not originate as part of GNU project although it was released
under GNU license. It is also my understanding that GPL doesn't grant
GNU project ownership of the code. When people start this ancient debate
of Linux vs. GNU/Linux again, I kinda start thinking, just how hard it
would be to port BSD version of libc to linux. It is probably hard, but
I think a lot of people would follow just to stop the GNU/Linux madness.

On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 03:41 -0500, J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote:
> [There is an older thread on this issue on Sounder.  In the interests of 
> making this material available for future reference in one place, please 
> consider following up there.]
> 
> nocturn wrote:
> > But, it can be argued that Gnome/Xorg/KDE contribute just as much to
> > the functionality of the OS (at least as a desktop).  So using the term
> > KDE/Linux or Gnome/Linux is also accurate.
> > Then we start getting Ubuntu GNU/Xorg/Gnome/Linux 5.04.
> 
> A number of people ask questions or raise points that are directly addressed 
> by the FSF's GNU/Linux naming FAQ.  Consider 
> http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#many as a response to this point.
> 
> > I agree with Linus on this, Linux is an established and easy to
> > remember 'brand' name.  We need to establish some recognition to the
> > term by Joe sixpack.
> 
> This reads like you think it's fair to give all the credit to one man--the one 
> man mentioned almost by name by the egotistically named "Linux" kernel (even 
> Torvalds was quoted as saying he considered the name egotistical in a Wired 
> interview)?  I notice he doesn't object or make any effort to correct 
> interviewers from believing the idea that one man put together an entire OS, 
> but that doesn't sound fair to me.
> 
> http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#TOChelplinus
> 
>  > GNU by itself would have been fine, but history selected the term Linux.
> 
> Things are not decided for us by "history", we decide what we wish to repeat.
> 
> http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#lost and 
> http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#whatgood seem to address this point.
> 
> I recommend reading the rest of the FAQ as well.  It's quite informative and 
> raises far more important issues such as being fairminded and not just caving 
> into popularity, as well as understanding why it is so important to educate 
> others about software freedom and why one cannot do that merely by giving one 
> individual (particularly Linus Torvalds who shows no interest in software 
> freedom) all the credit.
>