I'll start by saying that I respect RMS and the FSF and all the work they do and the software they've produced. I just happen to disagree with their politics - RMS' thesis that all software should be Free (as in speech) and that closed-source proprietary software and anyone trying to sell it is inherently evil and must be eliminated (OK, I'm probably putting more foam in his mouth than is really there).
I'd agree that Free software is preferable to and has various advantages over the proprietary stuff, and in an ideal world all software would indeed be free. However, we live in the real world. Software is written by people, and these people need money to pay rent, buy food, etc. Take away proprietary software development and where does this money come from? You can do services, but someone has to fund development work, and what's to stop someone else just taking the code and undercutting? Something like anti-virus software where constant development is necessary would be a prime example.
The code I write in my free time I write because I enjoy writing it, so I release it under the GPL in case anyone else might find it useful. On the other hand, if someone wants to make some money by asking people to pay for their hard work, I don't have a problem with that - a plumber expects to be paid by the people who benefit from his work, why shouldn't a programmer?
So, why don't I call Linux GNU/Linux?
- It sounds silly - a lame excuse, I know, but still sufficient.
- As the FAQ says, there are many other components in your average Linux distro. We can't mention them all, so why should GNU get credit when many other things don't? Just because it's the largest component?
- I don't agree with the FSF's politics, so I don't want to promote them in that way.
Read the full SlashDot rant-fest here</a.
