Some general principles of naming
rms at gnu.org
Wed Oct 20 01:03:02 UTC 1999
You've said this before, and you've yet to convince me.
Ok, I can't win 'em all. You're entitled to your opinion. I think
the reasons are good ones and ought to convince many other people.
I do not believe you can fairly make the 'principal developer'
claim unless the project was working to the same goals as
the Linux project. Which, to the best of my knowledge,
Actually I don't see how this relates to the issue.
GNU was working toward *a* free Unix-like
system. They have, AFAIK, been unsuccessful in achieving
that goal to date. However, much of the work they put into
that effort was adopted by *a* system project which *did*
complete a similar goal.
It is mostly the same system. The final system which people are using
was developed much more by us than by anyone else.
Assume I wrote 100K lines of code, and didn't achieve the overall
goal I had in mind when writing it. Nevertheless, the code
worked inasfar as it had progressed. Now someone else takes that,
adds 10K lines of their own, and achieves a goal almost identical
to my original one. It sounds as though, by your lights, I
would be the 'principal developer' of the result.
Yes, I think you would be in that case.
I continue to regard your position as an attempt at dog-in-the-
The dog in the manger would not let the cattle eat their food,
even though he did not want it. I don't see how that resembles
You are entitled to your opinion, but I stand by what I have said.
More information about the License-discuss