just curious: why no mention of GNU?

[Marco Gerards]

Dmitriy Kropivnitskiy <nigde at mitechki.net> writes:

> 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.

A few utilities is really an understatement.  Some people consider
linux the core of the system, fine, Linux gets a got of credit when
you say GNU/Linux.  But, at least IMO, GNU is the most important part
of my system.  For example libc, gnome, emacs, coreutils, gcc, etc are
all GNU projects.  And it is not about any project they desire, they
are asking to be respected because GNU software is used in GNU/Linux
distributions.  Please read the GPL FAQ for all details about why they
are asking this.

> 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.

It is developed using GNU software and it is quite useless without GNU
software, especially on a desktop system.  OTOH, you can use GNU
software without linux.

--
Marco