Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Linux Software Your Rights Online

Torvalds Says Linux IP Is Sound 336

Posted by timothy
from the dear-darl-let's-call-him dept.
An anonymous reader submits: "In an interview with CRN, Linus Torvalds says he's confident there won't be any IP problems discovered in Linux. In fact, Torvalds, says he was extra careful with issues like the IBM Read Copy Update code."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Torvalds Says Linux IP Is Sound

Comments Filter:
  • Whew (Score:5, Funny)

    by sulli (195030) * on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @08:22PM (#6448457) Journal
    What a relief. It would really suck to have to switch back to IPX after all these years.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @08:25PM (#6448482)
    make the TCP/IP jokes stop, please!
  • by wackybrit (321117) on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @08:26PM (#6448487) Homepage Journal
    The Linux intellectual property is really sound, and not code? Oh great, now the RIAA are gunna bust our nuts for distributing Linux for free!
  • Shock; Surprise (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sargent1 (124354) on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @08:27PM (#6448493)
    Huh. And I was all prepared for him to say, "I expect all kinds of IP problems in Linux."

    On a serious note, it is good to know he was thinking of these issues for some time.

    • Re:Shock; Surprise (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Pieroxy (222434)
      Well, don't you find it suspicious that Linus comes up with this after such a long time !?!?

      It sounds weird to me. Why didn't he say that in the first place ?
      • Re:Shock; Surprise (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Trolling4Dollars (627073) on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @08:52PM (#6448689) Journal
        Errr... no. He probably went through the code with a fine toothed comb (or a decent pattern matching app) and found nothing infringing because there never was anything infringing to begin with.
        • Re:Shock; Surprise (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Xzzy (111297) <sether@@@tru7h...org> on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @09:30PM (#6448923) Homepage
          That, or it took him this long to go over it with a lawyer before opening his mouth on the subject.
        • Re:Shock; Surprise (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Pieroxy (222434) on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @09:30PM (#6448924) Homepage
          This has to be the most stupid post ever.

          How could he find something infringing when he doesn't know the code it's supposed to infringe ?

          Can you tell me how he could possibly know if IBM put some of SCO's code into Linux!!!!!!! Except if he has its own copy of the SCO code of course...
        • Errr... no. He probably went through the code with a fine toothed comb (or a decent pattern matching app) and found nothing infringing because there never was anything infringing to begin with.

          Ummm, probably not a pattern matching app...what other source code do you think he had access to? I'd wager none...
      • Re:Shock; Surprise (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Billy the Mountain (225541) on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @08:54PM (#6448700) Journal
        Well, don't you find it suspicious that Linus comes up with this after such a long time !?!?

        It sounds weird to me. Why didn't he say that in the first place ?


        If he came out with it in the first place he wouldn't have been able to say that he'd been thinking about IP issues for a long time.

        BTM
  • by Keebler71 (520908) on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @08:27PM (#6448496) Journal
    Then if it falls in the forest does anyone hear it?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @08:30PM (#6448519)
    Damn, this guy is cool. He gets to the point. Guess linux users don't need to worry about SCO anymore. Heh, not surprising since Slashdot stopped it's once-a-day-SCO-story.

    Anyway, even though this interview is really short, Linus has good points. The kernel submission system is very open, unlike propriatary systems, and if there is a problem, it can be traced.

  • by spotlight2k3 (652521) on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @08:31PM (#6448530) Journal
    linux when they pry it from my cold dead hands, no wait, i meant to post that on the nra site. good to see linus finally helping to clarify things
  • by NoTheory (580275) on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @08:31PM (#6448531)
    Linus seems to be getting more and more annoyed with each one of these interviews. Why don't all these various online news sites take a hint? ;) at least ask him about -something- other than SCO SCO SCO. Give the poor man a break.
    • by Feztaa (633745) on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @10:03PM (#6449140) Homepage
      Linus seems to be getting more and more annoyed with each one of these interviews.

      It's no surprise. Did you read the bit where he says he doesn't like customers? That really hit the nail on the head; Linus is just a geek like the rest of us, and he just wants to play with his toys. The more time he spends talking about the stupid lawsuit, or talking with customers, or whatever, the less time he spends writing code, and that bothers him.
  • Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MoThugz (560556) on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @08:33PM (#6448549) Homepage
    Torvalds: The biggest effect by far has just been a lot of time wasted on discussion.


    All I got to say is...
    "..."

    'Nuff said... back to some kernel hacking!
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @08:37PM (#6448571)
    Because he's one baaaad computer hackin' mutha fucka.
  • by Fux the Pengiun (686240) on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @08:39PM (#6448589)
    About time this came back around. I've been playing this throught my head over and over again, every time this SCO thing comes up, and finally we see the way it really works out.

    See, we know SCO is like Darth Vader, and Microsoft is like the Emperor, pulling his strings. Now, we always thought IBM was Luke, kind of, in that they're the ones having to fight off Vader, but I couldn't quite figure out who Linus was. At first, I figured he was Han Solo, with the helping and the fighting and all, and Alan Cox is obviously Chewbacca (just check the hair).

    But now I think we see that Linus is really a mix of Obi-Wan and Yoda, because he's helping and guiding, but not really fighting himself. At least I thought he was Yoda, just except for the lying (I mean, wtf didn't Yoda ever tell Luke SCO was his father?) but now we see Obi-Wan taking a more active role, actually standing up to SCO! So we're at the "full circle" part, where Linus tells SCO that if he strikes him down (i.e., inspects the code) he'll become more powerful (i.e. open sourced and GPL protected) than he can possibly imagine.

    See, now it all makes sense! Now we just need Luke (IBM) to blow up the "Death Star" (frivilous lawsuits) with a proton torpedo (the GPL) shot down an "exhaust tube" (an exhaust tube). I hope that cleared it all up for everybody.
  • Say what? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by The Bungi (221687) <thebungi@gmail.com> on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @08:41PM (#6448605) Homepage
    In fact, Torvalds, says he was extra careful with issues like the IBM Read Copy Update code

    I thought he didn't care? As in "I don't want to know what we're putting in, don't tell me"? And now he was "extra careful"? Or is this some other type of IP he's referring to?

    • Re:Say what? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by XO (250276)
      Well, I think he said that, but it was already out of the bag at that point that RCU was code that IBM needed to make sure it had the rights to distribute.

      So, he doesn't want to know in the future where things come from, as in this type of law, ignorance DOES make one innocent .. whereas with more physical laws, ignorance of a law does NOT make one innocent...

      But, at this point, he already knew.

      Kind of like where I'm at, we sell a lot of radio transmitters. If someone tells me they are going to take
      • by mindstrm (20013) on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @10:23PM (#6449263)
        That is not ignorance of the law, that is ignorance of the fact.

        Not knowing that something is illegal is not an excuse.
        Not knowing you DID something in the first place is a totally different matter.

        Linus is not ignorant of the law, he knows taking someone elses stuff and putting it in his kernel without permission is illegal. The point is that, if you have no reason to suspect you don't have the rights, that should be the end of it as far as you are concerned, until someone points out otherwise.
        To do things the other way would be incredibly expensive, and endless... how do you prove code is totally within your rights? Full patent search and public annoncement on each function and update?
    • Re:Say what? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @09:27PM (#6448903)
      Such as when he wrote this [lwn.net]:

      From: Linus Torvalds

      To: Daniel Phillips

      Subject: Re: large page patch (fwd) (fwd)

      Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 15:55:08 -0700 (PDT)

      Cc: Alan Cox , , , David Mosberger , "David S. Miller" , , , ,

      On Mon, 12 Aug 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
      >
      > It goes on in this vein. I suggest all vm hackers have a close look at
      > this. Yes, it's stupid, but we can't just ignore it.

      Actually, we can, and I will.

      I do not look up any patents on _principle_, because (a) it's a horrible
      waste of time and (b) I don't want to know.

      The fact is, technical people are better off not looking at patents. If
      you don't know what they cover and where they are, you won't be knowingly
      infringing on them. If somebody sues you, you change the algorithm or you
      just hire a hit-man to whack the stupid git.

      Linus
      • Re:Say what? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Bootsy Collins (549938) on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @11:20PM (#6449636)

        Oh brother, not this again.

        Trade secrets, copyrights, and patents, are three different things, covered by three different sets of legislation and case law, and typically suggest three different approaches for relevant IP management. Most of Linus' comments in the article are about copyright. The LKML entry you reproduce is about patents. Patent issues have nothing to do with the dispute over RCU.

    • Re:Say what? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by xyote (598794) on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @10:19PM (#6449234)
      Linus was saying he was extra careful because he knew the RCU patents were owned by IBM and wanted a clear license to use the patents from IBM. What he doesn't know is there is a prior patent, 4,809,168, that is in the public domain so Linux, or anybody for that matter, doesn't really need a license for RCU. Even SCO could implement RCU without a license from IBM.
    • Re:Say what? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Error27 (100234) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [72rorre]> on Wednesday July 16, 2003 @12:22AM (#6449962) Homepage Journal
      Linus actually said "we" and not "I". And by "we" he, of course, meant Andrea Arcangeli.

      Here [iu.edu] is the link where Andrea says he had IBM send Linus a copy of the RCU patent paper work.

    • Re:Say what? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by stwrtpj (518864) <p@stewart.comcast@net> on Wednesday July 16, 2003 @12:29AM (#6450012) Journal
      I thought he didn't care? As in "I don't want to know what we're putting in, don't tell me"? And now he was "extra careful"? Or is this some other type of IP he's referring to?

      He was referring to two different things. The "I don't want to know" bit is about patents, which is a totally different animal from IP and copyright. Knowing about a patent ahead of time is tantamount to being tainted by the patent, and if the patented technology shows up in Linux, you're liable for triple damages because you knew about the patent and it went in anyway (under the US system anyway). You cannot check for patents because of this problem.

      IP and copyright are treated differently under the law. There is a little more leeway in these cases. Simple copyright infringement can be handled by stopping the infringement, especially when it can be shown via an audit trail like the kinds that exist for the Linux kernel that the infringement was not malicious or with forethought on the kernel maintainers (i.e. they thought they were getting code whose use was free and clear).

    • Ummm, no (Score:3, Informative)

      What Linus was saying about patents was that he will not actively go and search out patents to see if a development is infringing. This is considered the proper practice for engineers as it would eliminate any possible clean-room development defense if they looked at the patents, AND (to make matters worse) patents are so horribly written that you may not even recognize an infringing item.

      As for the RCU, he was extra careful because it was a known fact that IBM had a patent related to the code in question
  • RCU code (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @08:46PM (#6448637)
    1. SCO's lawsuit is about misappropriation of trade secrets
    2. RCU is a patented technology
    3. Patents are publicly viewable
    4. Therefore, RCU cannot be a trade secret

    I don't see any way SCO can have a claim unless the RCU code that IBM donated contained SysV code or code derived from SysV. I seriously doubt IBM would be stupid enough to do that.

    Anyway, since trade secrets are no longer protected once they are publicly revealed, no one should have anything to worry about except possibly IBM.
    • 1. SCO's lawsuit is about misappropriation of trade secrets
      2. RCU is a patented technology
      3. Patents are publicly viewable
      4. Therefore, RCU cannot be a trade secret

      Wrong. If I invent an algorithm and patent it, the algorithm is protected by the patent monopoly, and anybody who wants to implement that patent has to pay me royalties. If I then implement my algorithm, the implementation is covered by copyright monopoly. The algorithm is not a trade secret, because it is published. The code to implement

      • If I invent an algorithm and patent it, the algorithm is protected by the patent monopoly, and anybody who wants to implement that patent has to pay me royalties. If I then implement my algorithm, the implementation is covered by copyright monopoly. The algorithm is not a trade secret, because it is published. The code to implement the algorithm, no matter how trivial, is the trade secret.

        Wrong. You don't invent an algorithm - you discover it. Algorithm has been exisiting forever as a part of the math. So

    • Re:RCU code (Score:4, Funny)

      by Malcontent (40834) on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @09:51PM (#6449069)
      You are thinking wrong. Remember this is going to be tried in Utah. Here in a nutshell will be basis for this trial.

      1) SCO is a Utah company.
      2) The holding company is also based in Utah (and salt lake).
      3) Son of Orrin Hatch the beloved senator from Utah will be the lawyer for SCO.
      4) Linux is communist software written by hippies.

      Now I ask you good mormon members of this jury. Are you going to rule in favor for this fine mormon company or are you going to rule in favor of a bunch of communist hippies?

      SCO has this trial locked up. They will win it no matter what the evidence. It's going to be up to the appelate court to really decide this. Trust me no jury in salt lake is going to rule against the local boys.

      • You've got issues, my friend.
      • Re:RCU code (Score:3, Funny)

        by putaro (235078)
        Oh, but you've forgotten IBM's ace in the hole:

        5) SCO stands for Santa Cruz Operation.

        Now we all know that Santa Cruz is full of dope smoking hippies. These dope smoking hippies are trying to PRETEND to be good Mormons and pull one over on IBM which, though we're not a Mormon business, we like to dress like Mormon missionaries.
        • Re:RCU code (Score:3, Funny)

          by Malcontent (40834)
          If you ever go to utah (and I have) you will notice two things. Two things people in Utah hate more then hippies and liberals are californians and new yorkers.

    • I don't see any way SCO can have a claim unless the RCU code that IBM donated contained SysV code or code derived from SysV. I seriously doubt IBM would be stupid enough to do that.

      IBM's contract with AT&T allows IBM to create derivative works but it also requires that IBM treat these derivative works the same way that they treat the Unix base code.

      In this way it's similar to the GPL. If IBM had released a Linux kernel with RCU features, people would be clamoring for the RCU code to be released under
      • Ironically, a ruling which finds RCU to not be a derived work of Sys V helps IBM but weakens the GPL by narrowing what must be considered a derived work. A ruling which holds RCU to be a derived work of Sys V hurts IBM, but helps the GPL by setting an expansive definition of what constitutes a derived work.

        I don't think that a more expansive definition of derivitive works "helps" the GPL. If anything, it contributes to the perception that GPL has a "viral nature" as claimed by Microsoft. If I am a company

  • by Juiblex (561985) on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @08:47PM (#6448651)
    but what about the TCP problems?
  • by unixwin (569813) on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @08:50PM (#6448673) Homepage
    How soon will this be misquoted ??
    "CRN: Are you being called in by vendors such as CA and systems integrators to help win over some of these big Linux deals?

    Torvalds: No. I never go to customer meetings. I don't like customers (laughing). "
  • Linus being naive? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by geekee (591277) on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @08:51PM (#6448676)
    When Linus says a contract dispute between IBM and SCO has no bearing on Linux, I think he's being a bit naive. If the code IBM submitted to Linux was a violation of that contract, in addition to damages IBM must pay, a court may place an injunction on shipping Linux, or force Linux users to pay damages as well, depending on the wording of the licensing agreements in the distros being used. Of course this may be pessimistic thinking, but it's not an impossible scenario. Also, if IBM is found in violation of their contract, thats ammunition to pursue further lawsuits against other Linux companies and end-users.
    • FUD (Score:4, Insightful)

      by phriedom (561200) on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @09:21PM (#6448868)
      "...or force Linux users to pay damages as well, depending on the wording of the licensing agreements in the distros being used."

      Linux users are not party to the contract between IBM and SCO, so nothing in that contract can compell Linux users to do anything.

      The most the courts can do to Linux is force them to remove code IF (and I just can't see how it could, but if) SCO does in fact own the rights to code submitted to Linux by IBM. Linux will live on no matter what and SCO can't touch users or developers.
    • by iabervon (1971) on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @09:59PM (#6449117) Homepage Journal
      The court can only place an injunction on IBM. A different court, in a case in which Linux users or other companies shipping Linux are defendants, could place an injunction on them. It would be possible that the suit against IBM could prevent IBM from shipping Linux machines, of course.

      Of course, it is possible that a win against IBM could lead to suits against others. But SCO could at most get IP they own removed, and are much more likely to get themselves countersued by Linux companies who have now been asking for months what they would have to do to avoid violating SCO's IP rights.

      Personally, I think if SCO wins their contract suit against IBM, they'll go after MicroSoft next. After all, they have a contract with MicroSoft and they've gotten a settlement out of MicroSoft before.
      • Personally, I think if SCO wins their contract suit against IBM, they'll go after MicroSoft next. After all, they have a contract with MicroSoft and they've gotten a settlement out of MicroSoft before.

        Rumor has it that microsoft just dumped an assload of cash into SCO stock.

        But, linux is safe. You can't unring a bell.
    • by AstroDrabb (534369) on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @10:20PM (#6449246)
      Linux will be Fine no matter what the outcome and no Linux customer or vendor will be touched. Think of it this way. Toshiba and Sony are fighting over some new type of TV. Those TV's are used by customers and sold by stores like BestBuy. If Sony is found guilty, Sony will have to pay damages to Toshiba. No home user is going to be force to return the TV or pay money to Toshiba. Even BestBuy won't be fined. At most BestBuy will no longer be able to sell that model. To put this example into Linux terms, no Linux user will be touched and for any Linux vendor, the most that would happen to them is that they have to ship/use a different version of Linux without the infringing code. FUD, is FUD whether it is from MS or SCO. The sad thing about FUD is that it often confuses people into thinking as you have.
    • by phliar (87116)

      If the code IBM submitted to Linux was a violation of that contract, in addition to damages IBM must pay, a court may place an injunction on shipping Linux, or force Linux users to pay damages as well,

      Bah! It is to larff.

      Certainly a rogue court can tell anyone to do anything. Other than that, this claim of yours doesn't hold water. If I buy stolen property in good faith, I cannot be held liable for the crime. The most I can be made to do is to return the stolen property. I hope no one is daft enough t

  • Open Source (Score:2, Interesting)

    by brownaroo (682715)
    If a programming project is open source, with an uncontrolled number of people working on its, whats to stop someone comming forward saying I changed module x with code/ideas I stoll form company y in an IP case.
    I know things like GPL try to address IP with open source but have their been any big court cases concerning IP on open source Software to test thing out? (forgive me if I an not aware of some big case, that 99% of everyone always knows about)
    • Re:Open Source (Score:2, Interesting)

      by titzandkunt (623280)

      Someone - anyone - can say that they hacked trade secret/patent protected/copyright code into, say, the Linux kernel.

      Unless these claims are matched in the version control and change logs, they'll have a hard time proving it.

      T&K.
  • by antiMStroll (664213) on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @08:55PM (#6448711)
    Says Linus:

    The one thing SCO has mentioned has been the Read Copy Update code that IBM gave us, and that wasn't accepted for the longest time into the kernel exactly because we knew the patents were owned by IBM. [But] we said we couldn't take it until you [IBM] said very explicitly that you also license the patents.

    Does this mean there is patented code in the Linux kernel? How does that not conflict with the GPL?

    • by penisburd (689776) on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @09:06PM (#6448791)
      Patents can be used in GPL code, AFAIK, as long as the owner of said patent allows it. Of course, it is always good to be cautious here because if IBM decided to yank the license for their patent, a lot of people are affected, so they have to get strict licensing terms that prevents that from happeneing.
    • by rossifer (581396) on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @09:11PM (#6448812) Journal
      Because the GPL specifically discusses patent licensing. In section 7, it states that if you can't get a royalty free license to the relevant patents then the GPL can't be applied.

      Which is meant to imply that (in this case) if IBM is willing to license the relevant patents to GPL licencees without royalty then it can hold those patents (and charge others for the use of them for non-GPL'd applications) and GPL code based on those patents. Which IBM is doing.

      Regards,
      Ross
      • by steveha (103154) on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @10:11PM (#6449195) Homepage
        [IBM] can hold those patents (and charge others for the use of them for non-GPL'd applications) and GPL code based on those patents.

        Yes, exactly correct. This is why Linux has RCU and BSD doesn't. IBM is willing to license the patents for free for GPL code, but they still want to charge license fees for use in proprietary code.

        Releasing something under BSD is effectively placing it in the public domain.

        By the way, you sometimes see people claiming that "if there weren't any copyrights there would be no need for GPL" or some such. Not so. GPL uses copyright law to prevent people from taking free projects proprietary; BSD lets you do anything you want, including taking a free project, hacking it up slightly, and releasing it as a proprietary product.

        steveha
        • Businness friendly (Score:3, Insightful)

          by xixax (44677)
          And therefore illustrates how GPL is more useful to businness than BSD, which lets people take IP with impunity.

          Xix.

    • by Azog (20907) on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @09:33PM (#6448935) Homepage
      Like it says... the patents are licensed. Read the GPL, it is not incompatible with patents. It just says they have to be licensed so that they won't be a problem for people using the code.

      So IBM wrote a license for their RCU patents which says (briefly) that anyone can use it in GPL'ed code.

      And there you go - no conflict.

      Of course IBM can still sue people who use the RCU stuff in NON-GPL'ed code, unless those people get a separate license to do so.

  • by Bio-Hazzard (689047) on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @08:57PM (#6448726) Journal
    The worst case senario (which I think is EXTREMELY unlikely) is that the courts find SCO right on all points, this means linux will become a "dark" OS, you'll have to find obscure sites and download the latest kernel before it gets locked down.
    More likely is that SCO gets chucked out on it's arse for having such lame evidence (last I heard it was 80 lines that were copied word 4 word) and linux comes out fine.
    But my biggest worry is that whatever the outcome whenever a big campany is looking to migrate, the issue of the "stolen" code will come out.
    Some conversation like this will happen.

    IT guy: We should switch to linux it's cheaper, faster and more stable.
    Manager: But what about the stolen code?
    (conversation on how it wasn't stolen etc.)

    The biggest problem is our reputation will be tainted and that's whats bugging me.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      The lawsuit is about trade secrets. Once they're public, they aren't protected anymore. As long as IBM owns the copyright for the donated code, they can distribute the code. But IBM could possibly be liable for violating their contract if SCO can somehow convince a court that the code they donated is a Unix derivative and their contract doesn't allow that.
    • by isorox (205688) on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @10:18PM (#6449231) Homepage Journal
      you'll have to find obscure sites and download the latest kernel before it gets locked down.

      What? /usr/src? 6 versions of the 2.4 kernel on 3 different boxes, not to mention tons of CD's I've collected over the years. But yes, you are right about reputation.

      I thought that linux would simply have the offending code removed - the rest of the code is GPL's and I could release "isoroxix" tomorrow with the same non-sco code. Linux wont go away, and even if it did there's always HURD :D. Moving in on the desktop might take a little longer though.
  • by solferino (100959) <hazchem AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @10:01PM (#6449125) Homepage

    Linus :

    In the end, SCO is not a very surprising [company to bring a lawsuit]. Their business was zero and it was shrinking.

    Curious mathematical idea, but lovely rhetoric.

  • I'm glad that Linus Torvalds, esq. cleared that whole issue up. What's that you say? Linus is not a lawyer? You mean his comments are really no more insightful as the rest of the armchair lawyers on /.? I gotta run. I have to cancel the lawsuit I planned after reading all those comments on /.
  • by Spackler (223562) on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @11:13PM (#6449605) Journal
    How many times does RMS have to tell you. IT'S GNU/linux.
    • Re:Damnit Linus! (Score:3, Informative)

      by nathanh (1214)
      How many times does RMS have to tell you. IT'S GNU/linux.

      No, SCO claims IBM copied code into the kernel, which is correctly termed Linux. RMS has clarified this already.

    • Re:Damnit Linus! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Feztaa (633745) on Wednesday July 16, 2003 @02:04AM (#6450376) Homepage
      How many times does RMS have to tell you. IT'S GNU/linux.

      Watch Revolution OS. Linus clearly states that the idea of taking Linux and calling it GNU/Linux is "ridiculous".

      Personally, I'm neutral on the subject. Yes, Stallman did a lot of work and deserves credit for GNU. On the other hand, 'linux' is simply the popular term used to describe a GNU system running the Linux kernel. Stallman wants to call it GNU/Linux, and Linus thinks is silly to waste time arguing about it. I sort of agree with both of them -- GNU/Linux is a good name, but convincing the entire world to stop calling it 'linux' is a waste of time.

      And BTW, the kernel is just 'Linux', no matter what. RMS only insists on GNU/Linux when you're talking about the whole system, not just the kernel.

ASCII a stupid question, you get an EBCDIC answer.

Working...