Your argument was even worse, actually, but it didn’t address it directly: you’ve implied the OS needed to credit GNU because Stallman was philosophically and directly responsible for the free software movement.
This is an absurd idea. He deserves credit for what he did - but not for inventing the concept of making something free and open, which humanity has always understood and applied. Even within the context of software, this type of collaboration did exist and would exist without Stallman. His contributions were immense - sure, but that’s it, the implication that any popular piece of libre software owes anything to Stallman by the mere virtue of being libre is totally wrong. In fact, Stallman’s version of “open” is deeply intertwined with the American version of what it means to be “free” politically and it has manifested so many times that there are several open projects with the entire goal of not using GNU components, code or licenses.
the implication that any popular piece of libre software owes anything to Stallman by the mere virtue of being libre is totally wrong.
Considering Linux: Linux was proprietary at first, until Torvalds was inspired by the free software movement to free it, even using GNU’s GPL. He later said that making Linux open source was the best decision he ever made, and I’m pretty sure that this would not have happened without the popularity of GNU and the movement reaching him. Linux would’ve been just another small proprietary kernel. So Torvalds owes a lot to Stallman.
Also, without GNU, Linux would not have been practically usable. Only after the hard work of combining Linux with the already huge codebase of GNU could Linux be meaningfully used and become popular.
In fact, Stallman’s version of “open” is deeply intertwined with the American version of what it means to be “free” politically
Well, “open source” gives you exactly the same freedoms as “free software” gives you, so proponents of “open source” can’t be that far off ideologically.
it has manifested so many times that there are several open projects with the entire goal of not using GNU components, code or licenses.
The code is already there and it’s usable. Not using it because you don’t like the person/organization seems a bit… misguided.
What a lazy response. You do realize that only one paragraph was an argument for calling it GNU/Linux and the rest of the comment regards other topics you yourself brought up in your last comment? Obviously it is not worth talking to you any longer, not because of diverging views but because of your manners…
Your argument was even worse, actually, but it didn’t address it directly: you’ve implied the OS needed to credit GNU because Stallman was philosophically and directly responsible for the free software movement.
This is an absurd idea. He deserves credit for what he did - but not for inventing the concept of making something free and open, which humanity has always understood and applied. Even within the context of software, this type of collaboration did exist and would exist without Stallman. His contributions were immense - sure, but that’s it, the implication that any popular piece of libre software owes anything to Stallman by the mere virtue of being libre is totally wrong. In fact, Stallman’s version of “open” is deeply intertwined with the American version of what it means to be “free” politically and it has manifested so many times that there are several open projects with the entire goal of not using GNU components, code or licenses.
Considering Linux: Linux was proprietary at first, until Torvalds was inspired by the free software movement to free it, even using GNU’s GPL. He later said that making Linux open source was the best decision he ever made, and I’m pretty sure that this would not have happened without the popularity of GNU and the movement reaching him. Linux would’ve been just another small proprietary kernel. So Torvalds owes a lot to Stallman.
Also, without GNU, Linux would not have been practically usable. Only after the hard work of combining Linux with the already huge codebase of GNU could Linux be meaningfully used and become popular.
Well, “open source” gives you exactly the same freedoms as “free software” gives you, so proponents of “open source” can’t be that far off ideologically.
The code is already there and it’s usable. Not using it because you don’t like the person/organization seems a bit… misguided.
Absolutely none of what you just wrote is in any way an argument that supports calling it GNU + Linux.
What a lazy response. You do realize that only one paragraph was an argument for calling it GNU/Linux and the rest of the comment regards other topics you yourself brought up in your last comment? Obviously it is not worth talking to you any longer, not because of diverging views but because of your manners…
Hey, my comment is freely available in the fediverse - this means we ideologically owe it to Stallman.
Please refer to my comments as GNU + comment.