Linux OS? Not GNU/Linux ? :)
- Thread starter ekianjo
- Start date
GNU Nazis Abandon Zeppelins Inexplicably (Sarcasm)
Just a first attempt.
GNU is Not A Zealot Institution, Surprisingly.
This would be a typical GNU-style recursive acronym. Like GNU is Not Unix (but GNU is in fact a kind of Unix, but then again, it isn't, because the proprietary nature of the trademarked "official" UNIX is exactly what GNU is "rebelling" against), I think GNU are no zealots, although they are often portrayed as such (to the extent that "GNU zealot" almost sounds like a pleonasm to some), but simply an organization with a project and a philosophy/ideology that they promote in what I consider to be a quite civil way, not a fanatic or violent way like the word "zealot" implies.
GNU Nazis Are Zero In Size
The nazi ideology and the GNU one are mostly completely unrelated (after all, software licensing was not really an issue in the 1930s in Germany), but to the limited extent that you could compare them, they seem pretty much incompatible. So I think the number of people who are simultaneously nazis and GNU supporters is most likely zero.
Just a first attempt.
GNU is Not A Zealot Institution, Surprisingly.
This would be a typical GNU-style recursive acronym. Like GNU is Not Unix (but GNU is in fact a kind of Unix, but then again, it isn't, because the proprietary nature of the trademarked "official" UNIX is exactly what GNU is "rebelling" against), I think GNU are no zealots, although they are often portrayed as such (to the extent that "GNU zealot" almost sounds like a pleonasm to some), but simply an organization with a project and a philosophy/ideology that they promote in what I consider to be a quite civil way, not a fanatic or violent way like the word "zealot" implies.
GNU Nazis Are Zero In Size
The nazi ideology and the GNU one are mostly completely unrelated (after all, software licensing was not really an issue in the 1930s in Germany), but to the limited extent that you could compare them, they seem pretty much incompatible. So I think the number of people who are simultaneously nazis and GNU supporters is most likely zero.
Letalis Sonus
Advanced Member
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2009
- Messages
- 1,530
Woho, Godwin's law did it again! 
pmprog
DNF (Did Not Finish)
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2011
- Messages
- 4,150
I would argue it that way. SDL doesn't define the core of my application, it's a set of libraries to draw images to the screen, play audio and feed me input from the keyboard and mouse. It does not define any of my game or app logic, algorithms etc.
Let me put it this way, I can take out SDL and slot in Allegro pretty easily. It would take a small amount of change to the function names.
Interchangeability with something else is not the same as not being part of your program. Since SDL is LGPL'ed, this is not an issue, but if it were GPL'ed, that would mean that any program that uses SDL would need to have a GPL-compatible license.
The question is: is your program X based on a GPL'ed program Y? The question is not: could you theoretically replace Y by some non-GPL'ed Z?
E.g. GNU readline is a GPL'ed library, and because of that, anything that uses readline has to be licensed under the GPL as well. This has caused CLISP (an implementation of LISP) to become licensed under the GPL, because its author wanted to use readline. Even though readline is not a "core" component of CLISP, and even though it would be possible to take out readline from CLISP and put in some other line editing library, the situation remains that either you keep using GNU readline and accept the consequence (you have to release under the GPL), or you replace it with something else and pick whatever license you want. You don't get to ignore the GPL simply because it would theoretically be possible to replace the GPL'ed bits in it with something else.
The question is: is your program X based on a GPL'ed program Y? The question is not: could you theoretically replace Y by some non-GPL'ed Z?
E.g. GNU readline is a GPL'ed library, and because of that, anything that uses readline has to be licensed under the GPL as well. This has caused CLISP (an implementation of LISP) to become licensed under the GPL, because its author wanted to use readline. Even though readline is not a "core" component of CLISP, and even though it would be possible to take out readline from CLISP and put in some other line editing library, the situation remains that either you keep using GNU readline and accept the consequence (you have to release under the GPL), or you replace it with something else and pick whatever license you want. You don't get to ignore the GPL simply because it would theoretically be possible to replace the GPL'ed bits in it with something else.
comradekingu
Glowing ember
Its legal to make a modification towards GNU GPL, but not the other way around.
Also i suspect its based on what type of entity does what. You cant pretend to be someone else linking your own stuff under GPL.
But it really all falls back to if dynamically linking requires it to be GPL or just GPL-compatible.
Also i suspect its based on what type of entity does what. You cant pretend to be someone else linking your own stuff under GPL.
But it really all falls back to if dynamically linking requires it to be GPL or just GPL-compatible.
