GNU License for Hardware

[Derek Balling]

At 05:02 AM 10/15/99 -0600, Richard Stallman wrote:
>The GNU GPL does not make any legal requirements about what name you
>can call your system if you include a GNU program in it.  I think it
>would be wrong to try to impose such a requirement by legal force.

It is good that you recognize such.

>Therefore, people have a legal right to take the whole GNU system,
>replace one component such as the kernel (or even make no change at
>all), and call it some other name which does not include "GNU".  The
>FSF and other copyright holders of GNU programs cannot sue you for
>doing this.

Nor should they even desire to, if they truly believe in Freedom.

One thing to keep in mind though, is that, if Linus were a dick, he could 
have a field day with the FSF for attempting to dilute the Linux trademark 
he owns. We all know that Linus is NOT a dick though, so this is not even 
close to happening.

>But while that conduct is legal, that does not make it right and good.
>Part of the respect that people normally give to the developers of a
>software package is using the name they gave it.  If you make a
>variant of the GNU system, you don't legally have to call it "GNU",
>but it is rather unfriendly if you don't.

Linux never tries to be a variant of the GNU system. You insist on calling 
it that, but in many ways Linux simply tries to be a "best of breed" 
system. In many cases that is GNU software, in others it isn't. One variant 
of Linux (Debian) actively tries to be a GNU system, and they call 
themselves that - that is their choice. They could take Linux and call it 
something else if they wanted to, really. But the core developers of Linux 
do not try to make it a GNU system, and for you to attempt to impose that 
name upon them is regretful.

>Since the BSD advertising requirement has been mentioned, I should
>point out that it too makes no legal requirement about what name you
>can call your system if you include some BSD software.  As regards
>this particular issue, the old BSD license is no different from the
>GNU GPL.

But it would at least force people to give your ego the massaging it needs 
by leaving your (theoretical) GNU Advertising Clause in there.

>(I've called the BSD advertising requirement "obnoxious", but I don't
>call it evil.  I have asked people to avoid it because of practical
>problems it causes.  See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html.)

But if the GPL had it, then any GNU software would have to be recognized as 
such somewhere. That would suit your desires just fine, it would seem.

D