10%, or even 28%, isn't enough to claim "principle" developer in my book.
Major contributor, maybe even largest contributor, but principle implies
a majority, at least in my mind.
And lines of code are not the only measure. Right now, what is propelling
Linux into the general market are in fact the server applications:
sendmail, bind, Apache, etc; not the user-land tools (including the ones
I've worked on). A good case could be made that these are the "killer
apps" of the Linux market.
>
> And part of Linux (and I'm happy to be part of Linux), is the X Window
> System, which started in 1984. It was never part of GNU.
>
> Many people who know about the GNU Project are not aware that GNU is,
> first of all, the name of one operating system. The GNU Project takes
> its name from that system, it being the project to develop the system.
> "GNU software" is the software we wrote as part of developing the GNU
> system, plus other programs specifically contributed to the GNU system
> by their developers.
>
> The X Window System wasn't developed by the GNU Project, any more than
> it was written by Linus Torvalds; but we could and did include it in
> GNU, back in the 1980s. Thus, X is part of GNU, in the same sense
> that you call it "part of Linux": it is included in the GNU operating
> system. For this reason, we have since that time had the policy
> that graphical programs used in GNU had to work with X.
Does the fact that gcc is often used as the compiler of the X Window
System on many platforms mean that I should claim that gcc is part
of the X project? I think not... These tools, the GNU tools included,
are used in many other environments on their own for their own merits,
but Solaris, or Digital UNIX, don't claim that since they adopted these
tools they should be credited with them.
Apache, sendmail, bind, the X window system, etc, the list is too long
to name, have a strong life external to GNU, are parts of many other systems
(Solaris, Digital UNIX, HP/UX, FreeBSD, NetBSD, even Windows) used by
millions of of people; that does not make them parts of those other systems.
Likewise, because you have found a tool useful to your ends, claiming that
X, or Apache, or Sendmail, or Bind is part of the GNU project, and therefore
GNU should be credited, is similarly specious.
This claim that "X is part of GNU", with the implied corallary that GNU should
be given credit for other tools or for X, is what is divisive to the community.
Give credit where credit is due, be generous to others for their
contributions. Even implying that GNU should be given credit for work
done by other projects is the way to divide, rather than grow, the community
developing free software.
>
> Likewise for Sendmail and Bind, as well as TeX, which I believe was
> developed starting in 1978. I incorporated TeX into the GNU system
> right from the outset, by building Texinfo around it, and using it for
> all GNU documentation. TeX is not GNU software, not even GPL-covered
> software, but we added it to the GNU system.
And one could say that Linux, and many other systems have incorporated
TeX, the X Window System, with equal validity. Why does this mean that
Linux should be called GNU/Linux. The geneology of these tools are completely
independent of the GNU project.
>
> Many other people and projects have contributed code to the system,
> and some of this code is just as vital as anything the GNU Project
> wrote. But the GNU Project did one other crucial thing which no one
> else did: we made a complete free operating system our explicit goal.
> While others were writing a program here or there, for various
> laudable motives, we were systematically developing all the missing
> components, doing whatever was needed to reach the goal. And we are
> still doing this (much of the core of the system lacks free
> documentation, and we are working on filling this gap).
"no one else did"? Seems to me that the FreeBSD and NetBSD folks have
equal claim to such a goal. They may not have marketed themselves that
way, but it is certainly the case.
And others, in the FreeBSD and NetBSD projects did their part as well;
along with folks at Berkeley who bothered to free up as much non-AT&T
derived code as possible did theirs. I don't think you can claim that
what has resulted as Linux is exclusively due to the GNU project, large
though the contributions have been.
And much of the resulting system has extensive documentation, built
by the contributors. I care not to think about the sweat and blood I've
put on on my parts, nor the work that my company added in terms of
technical writing on the project...
>
> Many other contributors did not share this goal, and while their code
> is no less useful because of that, in most cases that the fact that it
> was useful in this system is a lucky coincidence. For the GNU
> Project, this was no coincidence--we wrote the software so that it
> would be useful in this system.
>
> As you see, this is often forgotten today. People think of the GNU
> Project as if all we did was write a number of useful programs, like
> the other projects.
No, I don't think most people who build free software forget that your
goal was to create an entire system.
>
> So part of the reason I ask people to call the Linux-based system
> GNU/Linux is to remind people of what really happened. Users should
> know that the system exists because of the idealistic vision of the
> GNU Project. Users should know that we worked for years towards this
> goal, at a time when most people said it was impossible and foolish.
>
Along with the idealism of many other people, in many other projects:
BSD, Apache, the X Window System, Perl, TK/Tcl, etc.
You do NOT have a monopoly on idealism. Many of us (maybe most) may disagree
with your methods, but agree with the goals.
> Then they will see that idealism is sometimes the only way to achieve
> an important practical result. Some of them will take this idealism
> seriously, and come to value their freedom strongly enough to help
> defend it when it is threatened. And that is what our community needs
> more than anything else.
"The only way"? I think not. Idealism is very useful; but not all have
your ideals. They often have their own ideals, as valid as yours. For
example, I drafted the original X copyright: my ideal of "free software"
is that others can use it for anything they like, including making money
to support their families. Are my ideals any worse or better than yours?
I think not. One must view things in what aims are to be achieved, and
how the world may be made a better place.
At this date, people call the aggreate "Linux"; it is long since too late
to attempt any change.
Richard, I am not trying to diminish your accomplishments: we are all well
aware of them, and use tools that you wrote or the GNU project has
written every day. You will NOT be forgotten. But you are damaging yourself
and your project's reputation everytime you overstate your contributions
or understate other's contributions.
So when you say GNU/Linux, sir, you have my opposition, not my support.
I believe this is dividing the community, not uniteing it. Be generous
with your credit to others, and not crediting yourself with others
contributions.
At this point, I've stated my position as clearly as I know how, and
do not intend to discuss this further.
- Jim Gettys
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/