linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
@ 2003-01-05  8:02 Albert D. Cahalan
  2003-01-06 17:13 ` Richard Stallman
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 221+ messages in thread
From: Albert D. Cahalan @ 2003-01-05  8:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel; +Cc: rms


Richard Stallman writes:

> Many people think GNU is a collection of tools, because the best known
> among the programs we developed for GNU are tools.  We also developed
> other programs for GNU that are not tools.  But GNU is not just a
> collection of various programs; it's an operating system which in 1992
> was mostly complete.  (See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/the-gnu-project.html.)
>
>     it would be
>     *inaccurate* to say anything but "Linux" when talking about "Linux,
>     the operating system."
>
> The term "operating system" has sometimes been used with the same
> meaning as "kernel", but nowadays when people speak of operating
> systems they typically mean complete systems such as HPUX, Solaris,
> Windows, MacOS, GNU, and GNU/Linux.

By "GNU" you mean the Hurd? That's not nice at all. Just where
did you get your network stack from? How about the bulk of the
hardware drivers?

I think Hurd/Linux or Linux/Hurd would be a proper name for
your kernel. Credit is due, right? Don't be a hypocrite now...

> If you call the system "Linux", you are misinforming other people:
> teaching them a false picture of the system's history.  Some of them
> may become so attached to the false picture that it distorts their
> thinking.  If you call it "GNU/Linux", this won't happen.

Calling the OS "Linux" has nothing to do with teaching anybody
about history. The true historical name for the kernel, given
by Linus, is "Freax". I'm not kidding. An FTP site maintainer
(named Ari Lemmke?) came up with the "Linux" name.

So Freax is our kernel, and Linux is the OS. The kernel has to
report "Linux" as the name of course, since the kernel is the
part of the OS which supplies /proc/version. Using one name
for everything reduces confusion. Regular people have enough
trouble telling the OS apart from the hardware it runs on.
(The "Start" button is part of a PC you know!)

Anyway, "GNU/Linux" inhibits the spread of free software.
Regular people care about how attractive the name sounds.
This alone should be reason enough to drop the crusade.
Ask somebody in marketing, sales, or psychology if you need
help understanding this concept. In addition, the effort
you spend on "GNU/Linux" is noise that dilutes your message
about the value of free software. People have limited
attention; it does no good to get side-tracked on some
personal conflict over a perfectly usable and accepted name.
The listener allows you a limited amount of conflict;
exceed some per-person threshold and you get dismissed
as a nut.







^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 221+ messages in thread
* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
@ 2003-01-15 20:08 Thomas Hood
  2003-01-15 20:25 ` Mark Hounschell
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 221+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Hood @ 2003-01-15 20:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel

RMS: This battle is lost.  By continuing to complain
about the use of "Linux" you are not only wasting your
time; you are harming your reputation, too.  Why?
Because you are *wrong*, and yet you won't admit that you
are wrong, but continue to reiterate your wrong opinion.
This makes you sound like a fanatic.  Your stubbornness
has served you well in other causes (where you are closer
to the truth), but is hurting you here.

Let me explain how you are wrong.  You say things like:

> Calling the system "Linux" denies the GNU Project
> credit for the GNU operating system.

This is wrong.  The use of a proper name does not commit
the user to any particular characterization of what bears
that name.  I can use the name 'Linux' without in any way
committing myself to a denial of the role of GNU in Linux.
When I use the name 'Linux', I (usually) denote that
collection of software consisting of GNU's tools, Linus's
kernel, Ximian's MUA, etc.  I do this without contradicting
myself in the least.  In philosophical jargon, proper names
do not have connotations.

To see, this, suppose I decide to start calling you "Mr. X".
This may not be very polite of me, but it is not incorrect,
so long as everyone understands whom I am referring to.
So when you say that 'GNU/Linux' is a "just" name and
'Linux' is not, you are wrong.  There is no such standard
of justice.

In your view, Linux is "the GNU system" with a Linux kernel
added on.  Fine.  But it is wrong of you to imply that this
is the only way to regard what you call 'GNU/Linux'. 
It is equally legitimate to regard it as Linux with GNU
utilities added on.  There is no objective standard for
what constitutes a "system" or "the same system" in this
context.  You are wrong to imply that there is one.

I am willing to entertain the proposition that the GNU
project deserves greater recognition in Linux circles than
it has received.  But I want to warn you that quibbling over
a name is a bad way to try to improve the situation.  Doing
so on the basis of bad arguments is doubly bad.

Apart from that ... carry on the good work!

-- 
Thomas Hood <jdthood@yahoo.co.uk>


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 221+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <20030112070914.AAA21737%shell.webmaster.com@whenever>]
* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
@ 2003-01-12  7:13 David Schwartz
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 221+ messages in thread
From: David Schwartz @ 2003-01-12  7:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel


On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 01:16:54 -0500, Mark Mielke wrote:

>Atrocious how? My qualification "without significant side effects"
>means just that - *without* *significant* *side* *effects*. Note
>that
>I did not say web clients, but that below you assume web clients. I
>don't know about you, but I don't consider a web server to be an RT
>application.

    I don't understand how you could possibly say this. Any 
application that was using an RTOS does so because it has 
requirements that must be met. Switching from an RTOS to a non-RTOS 
means that you can't provide those guarantees anymore, which is a 
significant side effect.

>>Perhaps Linux can handle more web clients than vxWorks, but can
>>Linux guarantee that if the temperature in the core coolant exceeds

>>350 degrees, the secondary pump circuit will be activated within 13
>>milliseconds?

>If you truly wanted to fit the requirements you list above (350
>degress, secondary pump activated in < 13 milliseconds), I suggest
>you
>use a hardware solution.

    You can't do everything in hard wired hardware and wouldn't want 
to for a large variety of reasons. Hardware is hard to change, hard 
to validate, and hard to test. You're much better off sticking with
generic, well tested, well understood hardware. However, you *must*
use an RTOS. Different job, different tool.

>I remain very optimistic that Linux+RT will be able to handle more
>capacity than vxWorks for the majority of RT applications.

    Probably so, but we weren't talking about "Linux+RT", were we?
Trust me, any real RT code for Linux will cause its performance to 
drop significantly. There will be constant checks for pre-emption, 
for example. (Disclaimer: I'm not familiar with what RT stuff is 
available for Linux. I'd be only too happy to discover it's really 
good and doesn't significantly affect performance.)

>But... this has gone too far off a dead thread. You obviously like
>vxWorks. Quite a few people I socialize with curse vxWorks. That's
>your freedom and their freedom. I don't want to be part of this
>anymore. :-)  (Private query: What does webmaster.com use vxWorks
>for?)

    No, I've never used vxWorks, I just understand the difference
between an RTOS and a non-RTOS and how to choose the right tool for
the job. If an application can run on an OS that is not an RTOS, it
almost always does. RTOSes are usually used where you *must* *have*
guarantees.

    It is extremely handy for many problems to be able to guarantee
that you can turn the pump on within 13 milliseconds without having 
to hard wire a specific circuit for that. This is the problem domain
RTOSes were meant for. This has inevitable overhead. If you need to
meet specific time requirements, then the overhead is a low price to
pay.

    Most applications that require RTOSes don't need a lot of
computing. Controlling a nuclear power plant takes less CPU power 
than playing Solitaire on a GUI. A P3 can easily provide 13 
millisecond response time without breaking a sweat, but not running a 
general purpose OS. That doesn't mean we should all run RTOSes.

    That you would even dream of comparing the performance of an RTOS
to a non-RTOS as a way of comparatively evaluating two operating
systems suggests you don't understand what an RTOS actually is for. 
You're not alone, by the way, I once had a conversation with the 
product manager for a leading RTOS and quickly discovered he had no 
idea what an RTOS was either. He was under the misconception that 
real time means high performance.

	The truth is that an RTOS allows you to use generic hardware for 
cases that would otherwise require highly specialized hardware. The 
benefit is flexibility, maintainability, and reliability. Generally, 
the CPUs you use are at least an order of magnitude faster than the 
task actually requires, so you don't particularly care about 
performance.

-- 
David Schwartz
<davids@webmaster.com>



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 221+ messages in thread
* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
@ 2003-01-12  6:16 Mark Mielke
  2003-01-12  7:09 ` David Schwartz
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 221+ messages in thread
From: Mark Mielke @ 2003-01-12  6:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: David Schwartz; +Cc: Linux kernel list

On Sat, Jan 11, 2003 at 08:19:32PM -0800, David Schwartz wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 22:33:25 -0500, Mark Mielke wrote:
> > Why do I doubt the calibre of vxWorks? People I trust who work on
> > RT systems have told me that in many cases, products with RT
> > requirements can perform better on Linux, than on vxWorks. (Better
> > meaning managing a higher capacity without significant side
> > effects)
> 	This is an atrocious way to compare a real-time operating system to 
> a non-real-time operating system. One would expect that real-time's 
> benefits also come at a cost, otherwise all operating systems would 
> be real-time operating systems.

Atrocious how? My qualification "without significant side effects"
means just that - *without* *significant* *side* *effects*. Note that
I did not say web clients, but that below you assume web clients. I
don't know about you, but I don't consider a web server to be an RT
application.

> 	Perhaps Linux can handle more web clients than vxWorks, but can 
> Linux guarantee that if the temperature in the core coolant exceeds 
> 350 degrees, the secondary pump circuit will be activated within 13 
> milliseconds?

If you truly wanted to fit the requirements you list above (350
degress, secondary pump activated in < 13 milliseconds), I suggest you
use a hardware solution.

I remain very optimistic that Linux+RT will be able to handle more
capacity than vxWorks for the majority of RT applications.

> 	A cheap hammer can drive in more nails than a top of the line 
> screwdriver.

Any brand name hammer that is aggressively marketted, costs more to
produce per hammer, than its competitors that may produce just as
good of a hammer, without all the marketting costs.

But... this has gone too far off a dead thread. You obviously like
vxWorks. Quite a few people I socialize with curse vxWorks. That's
your freedom and their freedom. I don't want to be part of this
anymore. :-)  (Private query: What does webmaster.com use vxWorks for?)

mark

-- 
mark@mielke.cc/markm@ncf.ca/markm@nortelnetworks.com __________________________
.  .  _  ._  . .   .__    .  . ._. .__ .   . . .__  | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/    |_     |\/|  |  |_  |   |/  |_   | 
|  | | | | \ | \   |__ .  |  | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__  | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

  One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
                       and in the darkness bind them...

                           http://mark.mielke.cc/


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 221+ messages in thread
* RE: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
@ 2003-01-10 15:29 Larry Sendlosky
  2003-01-11  1:58 ` Rob Wilkens
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 221+ messages in thread
From: Larry Sendlosky @ 2003-01-10 15:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Richard Stallman; +Cc: linux-kernel


Richard, 

We all know that "Linux" would not be where it is today without
the GNU software. I don't recall seeing one post in this
looonnngg thread that tries to say otherwise. Myself, and many others,
are very grateful for your and the FSF's work. PLEASE, stop hitting us
over the head with GNU/Linux. 

I'm sure there are many other "things" that have gotten broad public
attention and the real people or organizations behind it have not gotten
the credit they deserve either by what the "thing" is called or by
the press, etc. Only the people truly involved with the "thing"
know who is responsible. I think the same applies here. 

And, why is it only *you* beating us over the head with GNU/Linux?
Where's the rest for the GNU (non-linux specific) contributors?
Why aren't they bitching/whining too?

Like I said before, we aren't the people you have to educate/convince.
If it really means that much to you (and it seems to me that it does),
then you should be taking out magazine ads and buying time on TV
to reach the uneducated masses.


-----Original Message-----
From: Larry McVoy [mailto:lm@bitmover.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 6:39 PM
To: Richard Stallman
Cc: Vlad@Vlad.geekizoid.com; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"


On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 06:14:20PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> GNU, the system we were developing, was most of the early GNU/Linux
> system in 1992.  GNU in 1992 included non-GNU packages such as X11,
> and TeX.

Wow.  That might be one for the quotes file:

    "GNU ... was of the early GNU/Linux system.  GNU ... included non-GNU"

Well, that certainly explains a lot.  If you define GNU as "anything
which might be found on a Linux distro including non-GNU packages",
your position starts to make a certain twisted sense.  Only one problem
with that: if it wasn't GNU, it wasn't GNU, which means, Richard, you
are crackin' smoke and may need a vacation.  19 years of hard effort is 
a long time, have you considered retirement?  You've certainly earned it.

Oh, by the way, have you updated the GNU kernel pages to reflect the new
proper name: Linux/Hurd?  I'd really appreciate it if you could get to that.
-- 
---
Larry McVoy            	 lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitmover.com/lm 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 221+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <fa.gm4r3cv.1r4avpq@ifi.uio.no>]
* RE: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
@ 2003-01-03 22:24 Shureih, Tariq
  2003-01-03 23:06 ` Andrew Walrond
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 221+ messages in thread
From: Shureih, Tariq @ 2003-01-03 22:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 'Ranjeet Shetye', linux-kernel

The greatest enemy to knowledge is not ignorance; it's the illusion of
knowledge.

Shame on you!

--
Tariq Shureih
Opinions are my own and don't represent my employer

-----Original Message-----
From: Ranjeet Shetye [mailto:ranjeet.shetye@zultys.com] 
Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 2:10 PM
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: RE: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"


Hi RMS,

Saw you here and thought I'd remind you. I got under your skin quite a
few years back cos I wrote this perl-based cscope which I released for
free - with a modified BSD licence stating that no one in pakistan or no
person of pakistani nationality could use it and that this licence could
not be modified to allow pakis to use it. You might ask why I did that ?
Well, I am an Indian and I thought I'd just needle some pakis cos they
are such nincompoops. Anyways, 9/11 proved me right that pakis (+
saudis) suck ass big time.

Getting back to open-licence software, if you hadn't been such a
nitpicking ideologue, the free s/w world would have had a cscope at
least 2 years earlier than it did. I gave you my version of a "free"
licence, and you didn't like it one bit! That was the OTHER reason I did
it. To prove a point to you, that EVEN in a Free software world, there
might be some other price to be paid.

A full-freedom software world might turn out to be a grey tasteless
odourless flavourless communist world. Even free s/w needs competition
to keep it on its toes, and money is the best damned motivation for
normal people! While everyone, including me, appreciates what you've
achieved in the past, your intransigence over your untenable extreme
views on software freedom is the primary reason why you are losing
ground everyday with your own supporters. Think about it.

Ranjeet Shetye

> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org 
> [mailto:linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of 
> Christoph Hellwig
> Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 1:28 PM
> To: Richard Stallman
> Cc: efault@gmx.de; Hell.Surfers@cwctv.net; 
> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 03:31:07PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > If you call the system "Linux", you are misinforming other people: 
> > teaching them a false picture of the system's history.  
> Some of them 
> > may become so attached to the false picture that it distorts their 
> > thinking.  If you call it "GNU/Linux", this won't happen.
> 
> The term Linux for the whole system might be inaccurate, but 
> it's what is used and as long as the owner of the name Linux 
> (Linus) doesn't complain that's fine.  Calling it GNU/Linux 
> is 1984-style changing of history, though.
> 

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 221+ messages in thread
* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
@ 2003-01-03 21:52 Steven Barnhart
  2003-01-04  0:18 ` Florian Weimer
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 221+ messages in thread
From: Steven Barnhart @ 2003-01-03 21:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel

> The term Linux for the whole system might be inaccurate, but it's what
> is used and as long as the owner of the name Linux (Linus) doesn't
complain
> that's fine.  Calling it GNU/Linux is 1984-style changing of history,
though.

> I'd also like to add the the FSF didn't give a shit for Linux until it
> got popular enough to ride on the bandwaggon.

Not to mention the fact that GNU/Linux is the worst sounding and ugliest
looking name you could pick imho. I'd rather do the Mozilla way
"linux-gnu". It sounds better and the kernel is the most important
piece is it not? I agree the GNU project deserves some kind of credit
but I don't think it should be in the name exactly..no one's forced to
use GNU things I believe if you really _wanted_ to you could replace all
the GNU stuff with proprietary stuff and such...I would never do it but
heh I don't think you need GNU to use Linux.

-- 
Steven
sbarn03@softhome.net
GnuPG Fingerprint: 9357 F403 B0A1 E18D 86D5  2230 BB92 6D64 D516 0A94


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 221+ messages in thread
* Re: NVidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
@ 2003-01-03 21:50 Steven Barnhart
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 221+ messages in thread
From: Steven Barnhart @ 2003-01-03 21:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel

This looks to me like another "don't use something because its not free"
type of thing just like with Linus using Bitkeeper. Even if Nvidia
wanted
to open source the drivers they couldn't because they have atleast 5
NDAs
with third party companies! Also open source isn't for everything (don't
flame please). Its great but if a proprietary product is technically
better I will (usually) use it. The nv drivers as I understand it don't
support as much or whatever as the Nvidia drivers. I want good quality
graphics for paying a hefty price for the card. I am not going to use
free
drivers if they don't use the qualities. You guys should be happy Nvidia
is fricken dealing with all you "everything must be free" people. That
could be what's keeping (offtopic) Photoshop off of Linux. They
have added Linux to their driver arch. along with Windows..I think thats
an achievement. As for their GPL code in closed source..I'm not really
updated on that so I can't say to much but I believe this [1]was a case
and Nvidia fixed it. Sorry if I offended any Stallman followers but
c'mon guys..open source doesn't always produce the best products just
take a look at Bitkeeper and CVS. From my perspective BK is better.

[1] http://slashdot.org/features/00/05/01/0047219.shtml
-- 
Steven
sbarn03@softhome.net
GnuPG Fingerprint: 9357 F403 B0A1 E18D 86D5  2230 BB92 6D64 D516 0A94


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 221+ messages in thread
* Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
@ 2003-01-03 20:31 Richard Stallman
  2003-01-03 21:20 ` Mike Galbraith
                   ` (2 more replies)
  0 siblings, 3 replies; 221+ messages in thread
From: Richard Stallman @ 2003-01-03 20:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: efault, Hell.Surfers, linux-kernel

A rather misguided person wrote this:

	  This is the Linux-kernel list. It deals with
	  Linux-kernel issues. It does not deal with
	  your continual attempt to claim some sort of
	  credit for the work of thousands.

He wants to give all the credit for the whole system to just one
person.  I'm asking people to give a group of thousands of people
credit *also*.  In which of these two alternatives does one person
claim credit for the work of thousands?  The "Linux" alternative does
that.  If he applied his own criterion even-handedly to these two
alternatives, he would call the system "GNU/Linux".  But he doesn't
apply it even-handedly; he has led himself to apply a double standard.

Why does an intelligent person do this?  He is clinging to the idea
that "Linux" is the right name for the system, and that requires
distorting something.  Just as some people insist the Earth is flat,
or that astrology makes valid predictions, others believe that the
whole system is Linux.  All of them have to find a way to deny or
ignore the facts in order to go on believing what they believe.

If you call the system "Linux", you are misinforming other people:
teaching them a false picture of the system's history.  Some of them
may become so attached to the false picture that it distorts their
thinking.  If you call it "GNU/Linux", this won't happen.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 221+ messages in thread
* Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"
@ 2003-01-01  2:41 Hell.Surfers
  2003-01-01  9:36 ` Mike Galbraith
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 221+ messages in thread
From: Hell.Surfers @ 2003-01-01  2:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel, rms

The idea that the community is so desperate it "needs" Nvidia is near to GPL suicide, there isnt one set of rules for Nvidia, and one set for everybody else. They are a company that single handedly bankrupted Diamonds graphic consortium, then they bought them, as linus once said himself, he doesnt make all the decisions and he admits as you do its a community, Linux doesnt need Nvidia OR IBM OR any companys in control with a left hand that doesnt know what their right hand is doing, This is not a pathetic community, it has over 2 million estimated users, its time for Linux users to realise WHY it exists, and the true meaning of the words FREE SOFTWARE. I LIKE, I CARE, MR. Hedrick.

Dean. Three ways to kill yourself, and ive been drove in one...

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 221+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2003-07-20 22:15 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 221+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-01-05  8:02 Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" Albert D. Cahalan
2003-01-06 17:13 ` Richard Stallman
2003-01-06 17:37   ` Larry McVoy
2003-01-06 19:40     ` Steven Barnhart
2003-01-06 23:33     ` Matthias Andree
2003-01-07 15:47       ` Disconnect
2003-01-07 13:40     ` Richard Stallman
2003-01-07 14:26       ` Larry McVoy
2003-01-08  8:00         ` Richard Stallman
2003-01-08 13:51           ` Larry McVoy
2003-01-09 23:14             ` Richard Stallman
2003-01-09 23:24               ` Larry McVoy
2003-01-11  0:21                 ` Richard Stallman
2003-01-10  5:33               ` Oliver Xymoron
2003-01-10  6:07                 ` Andre Hedrick
2003-01-10  6:31                   ` Miles Bader
2003-01-10 14:17                 ` Charles Cazabon
2003-01-11  1:36                 ` Rob Wilkens
2003-01-11  4:06                   ` John Jasen
2003-01-11  7:13                     ` Andre Hedrick
2003-01-08 21:29           ` Matthias Andree
2003-01-09  2:26           ` Vlad@Vlad.geekizoid.com
2003-01-09  8:57             ` John Alvord
2003-01-09 15:18               ` What's in a name? Vlad@Vlad.geekizoid.com
2003-01-09 16:11                 ` Richard B. Johnson
2003-01-09 16:51                   ` venom
2003-01-09 17:48                   ` Jesse Pollard
2003-01-10  9:52               ` Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" Richard Stallman
2003-01-10 16:05                 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2003-01-10 18:38                 ` Names as origin component paths Mark Mielke
2003-01-10 18:41                 ` Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" Rogier Wolff
2003-01-12 11:55                   ` Richard Stallman
2003-01-12 12:27                     ` Mark Mielke
2003-01-13 14:32                     ` Richard B. Johnson
2003-01-13 17:09                       ` Jesse Pollard
2003-01-13 17:22                         ` Richard B. Johnson
2003-01-13 17:37                           ` Jesse Pollard
2003-01-13 18:48                             ` Richard B. Johnson
2003-01-14 18:55                               ` Richard Stallman
2003-01-14 19:06                                 ` Larry McVoy
2003-01-14 19:56                                   ` [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him Dax Kelson
2003-01-14 20:02                                     ` Larry McVoy
2003-01-14 20:19                                       ` Olivier Galibert
2003-01-14 20:36                                         ` Richard B. Johnson
2003-01-14 20:45                                           ` Larry McVoy
2003-01-15 23:28                                             ` Richard Stallman
2003-01-14 21:08                                         ` Mark Mielke
2003-01-14 21:51                                           ` Chris Funderburg
2003-01-14 22:13                                           ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen
2003-01-14 22:27                                           ` Wakko Warner
2003-01-15 16:39                                           ` Horst von Brand
2003-01-16 23:12                                             ` Adrian Bunk
2003-01-15 23:28                                           ` Richard Stallman
2003-01-16  2:51                                             ` Nicolas Pitre
2003-01-18  0:47                                               ` Richard Stallman
2003-01-18  0:56                                                 ` Larry McVoy
2003-01-19  1:36                                                   ` Richard Stallman
2003-01-19  5:55                                                     ` Matthew D. Pitts
2003-01-18  3:01                                                 ` Nicolas Pitre
2003-01-18 14:23                                                   ` andrea.glorioso
2003-01-20  0:50                                                   ` Richard Stallman
2003-01-20  1:46                                                     ` Nicolas Pitre
2003-01-21 18:17                                                       ` Richard Stallman
2003-01-21 18:30                                                         ` Larry McVoy
2003-01-21 18:55                                                         ` Nicolas Pitre
2003-07-20  2:42                                                       ` Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra
2003-07-20 19:30                                                         ` Brian McGroarty
2003-07-20 22:00                                                           ` Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra
2003-01-16  5:23                                             ` Steve Lee
2003-01-18  0:47                                               ` Richard Stallman
2003-01-20 13:38                                                 ` Horst von Brand
2003-01-22  9:59                                                   ` Richard Stallman
2003-01-22 10:19                                                     ` Paulo Andre'
2003-01-22 11:05                                                       ` Jamie Lokier
2003-01-22 12:56                                                     ` Dave Jones
2003-01-22 16:21                                                     ` Mark Mielke
2003-01-23 11:37                                                       ` Richard Stallman
2003-01-23 13:17                                                         ` Murray J. Root
2003-01-23 18:15                                                         ` Vlad@Vlad.geekizoid.com
2003-01-24  0:41                                                           ` [PATCH] [2.4.20] dead code: remove /proc/sys/vm/kswapd Lamont Granquist
2003-07-20  2:27                                                       ` [OFFTOPIC] RMS and reactions to him Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra
2003-07-20  8:09                                                         ` Florian Weimer
2003-07-20  8:49                                                           ` Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra
2003-07-20 10:55                                                             ` Wichert Akkerman
2003-07-20 21:52                                                               ` Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra
2003-07-20 22:09                                                                 ` Wichert Akkerman
2003-07-20 22:38                                                                   ` David Lloyd
2003-01-22 16:44                                                     ` John Alvord
2003-01-23  1:31                                                       ` Nick Matteo
2003-01-20 16:52                                                 ` Jerry Cooperstein
2003-01-22 17:14                                                 ` Jan Harkes
2003-01-14 20:27                                       ` Abramo Bagnara
2003-01-14 21:51                                         ` Andre Hedrick
2003-01-15  8:42                                           ` Abramo Bagnara
2003-01-14 21:42                                       ` Andre Hedrick
2003-01-15 12:47                                       ` Gaël Le Mignot
2003-01-14 20:15                                     ` Abramo Bagnara
2003-01-14 21:32                                   ` Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" Andre Hedrick
2003-01-15 12:44                                   ` Gaël Le Mignot
2003-01-14 22:20                                 ` Tomasz Kłoczko
2003-01-13 17:51                           ` Mark Mielke
2003-01-14 18:54                             ` Richard Stallman
2003-01-09 23:14             ` Richard Stallman
2003-01-09 23:39               ` Larry McVoy
2003-01-10  0:01               ` Linux/Hurd vs GNU/Linux (was Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently") Vlad@Vlad.geekizoid.com
2003-01-07 16:18       ` Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" Dimitrie O. Paun
2003-01-08  2:29         ` Miles Bader
2003-01-09  7:20           ` "Mother" == "computer-illiterate" Val Henson
2003-01-09  8:05             ` J Sloan
2003-01-09 13:14             ` Miles Bader
2003-01-09 14:35             ` Kent Borg
2003-01-09 19:40             ` Val Henson
2003-01-09 20:21               ` jlnance
2003-01-09 20:30                 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2003-01-10  1:34                   ` Andrew McGregor
2003-01-09 20:46                 ` Randy.Dunlap
2003-01-09 21:12                   ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2003-01-09 21:11                     ` Randy.Dunlap
2003-01-12 11:56                   ` Kristian Koehntopp
2003-01-09 23:11               ` Alan Cox
2003-01-09 22:41                 ` John Adams
2003-01-10  1:24                 ` Chris Adams
2003-01-10  2:15                   ` jdow
2003-01-10  3:20                     ` Val Henson
2003-01-10  4:23                     ` Tom Diehl
2003-01-10 10:35                 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen
2003-01-10  7:04             ` Tim Timmerman
2003-01-09  7:28         ` Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently" Richard Stallman
2003-01-09  6:44           ` Dimitrie O. Paun
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-01-15 20:08 Thomas Hood
2003-01-15 20:25 ` Mark Hounschell
     [not found] <20030112070914.AAA21737%shell.webmaster.com@whenever>
2003-01-12 14:40 ` Rob Wilkens
2003-01-12  7:13 David Schwartz
2003-01-12  6:16 Mark Mielke
2003-01-12  7:09 ` David Schwartz
2003-01-10 15:29 Larry Sendlosky
2003-01-11  1:58 ` Rob Wilkens
2003-01-11  2:07   ` Larry McVoy
2003-01-11  2:13     ` Rob Wilkens
2003-01-11  2:17       ` Larry McVoy
2003-01-11  2:38         ` Rob Wilkens
2003-01-11  2:41           ` Larry McVoy
2003-01-11  2:46             ` Rob Wilkens
2003-01-11 21:44           ` Kurt Garloff
2003-01-11 21:53             ` Rob Wilkens
2003-01-11 22:16               ` Chief Gadgeteer
2003-01-11 22:26               ` Kurt Garloff
2003-01-11 23:23                 ` Rob Wilkens
2003-01-12  3:33                   ` Mark Mielke
2003-01-12  3:43                     ` Rob Wilkens
2003-01-12  4:19                     ` David Schwartz
2003-01-13 13:51                       ` Richard B. Johnson
2003-01-12  4:00                   ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2003-01-12  4:04                     ` Rob Wilkens
2003-01-12  7:47                     ` Chuck Wolber
2003-01-11 22:36               ` Vojtech Pavlik
2003-01-11 22:57                 ` Rob Wilkens
2003-01-12 11:13                   ` Andrew McGregor
2003-01-11  3:26     ` Alan Cox
2003-01-11  2:54       ` Larry McVoy
2003-01-11  2:58         ` Rob Wilkens
2003-01-11  3:11           ` Zwane Mwaikambo
2003-01-11  3:14             ` Rob Wilkens
2003-01-11  3:16           ` John Adams
2003-01-11  3:35             ` Rob Wilkens
2003-01-11  3:48               ` Hans Sgier
2003-01-11  3:55                 ` Rob Wilkens
2003-01-11  4:41               ` J Sloan
2003-01-11  4:44                 ` Rob Wilkens
2003-01-11  5:09                   ` Andre Hedrick
2003-01-11 15:57                   ` Tom Sightler
2003-01-11  3:27           ` Brian Tinsley
     [not found]             ` <1042256385.1259.106.camel@RobsPC.RobertWilkens.com>
2003-01-11  4:16               ` Brian Tinsley
2003-01-11  3:52           ` yodaiken
2003-01-11  4:05             ` Rob Wilkens
2003-01-11  5:45               ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-11  6:01           ` Tomas Szepe
2003-01-11 15:03             ` Rob Wilkens
2003-01-11 19:41               ` Andre Hedrick
2003-01-11 21:18                 ` Rob Wilkens
2003-01-11  6:32         ` Ryan Anderson
2003-01-11  2:55       ` Rob Wilkens
2003-01-11  3:20   ` Tom Sightler
2003-01-11 19:48     ` Mark Mielke
     [not found] <fa.gm4r3cv.1r4avpq@ifi.uio.no>
     [not found] ` <fa.hq6mucv.l4qg1c@ifi.uio.no>
2003-01-08 15:02   ` Giacomo A. Catenazzi
2003-01-08 20:53     ` Jon Portnoy
2003-01-09 23:13     ` Richard Stallman
2003-01-09 23:45       ` Matthias Andree
2003-01-03 22:24 Shureih, Tariq
2003-01-03 23:06 ` Andrew Walrond
2003-01-03 21:52 Steven Barnhart
2003-01-04  0:18 ` Florian Weimer
2003-01-03 21:50 NVidia " Steven Barnhart
2003-01-03 20:31 Nvidia " Richard Stallman
2003-01-03 21:20 ` Mike Galbraith
2003-01-03 21:28 ` Christoph Hellwig
2003-01-03 21:32   ` Larry McVoy
2003-01-03 22:09   ` Ranjeet Shetye
2003-01-04  0:02     ` Lionel Bouton
2003-01-03 22:59   ` Måns Rullgård
2003-01-04 23:45   ` Richard Stallman
2003-01-04  4:37 ` Mark Rutherford
2003-01-01  2:41 Hell.Surfers
2003-01-01  9:36 ` Mike Galbraith
2003-01-02 18:38   ` Richard Stallman
2003-01-02 18:49     ` Larry McVoy
2003-01-02 19:02     ` Richard B. Johnson
2003-01-02 19:31     ` Mark Mielke
2003-01-03  7:50       ` Richard Stallman
2003-01-03  7:56         ` Mark Hahn
2003-01-03 20:30           ` Richard Stallman
2003-01-03 11:17         ` venom
2003-01-03 11:49           ` Andrew Walrond
2003-01-03 13:11             ` venom
2003-01-03 14:58             ` Bill Davidsen
2003-01-03 15:25               ` Andrew Walrond
2003-01-03 15:48                 ` Hugo Mills
2003-01-03 20:30           ` Richard Stallman
2003-01-03  1:01     ` Mike Galbraith
2003-01-03  7:50       ` Richard Stallman
2003-01-04 22:14     ` Matthias Andree

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).