If the attribution of credit is so important, shouldn't the GPL have had an attribution clause?
Sunday, August 10, 2008
A Pondering....
For the people who think Linux should be referred to as GNU/Linux to properly credit the GNU software used in Linux distributions;
If the attribution of credit is so important, shouldn't the GPL have had an attribution clause?
And a supplementary ponder.... Why GNU/Linux and not Linux/GNU? Answer for that found at the gnu site... fair enough... now back to the primary ponder.
If the attribution of credit is so important, shouldn't the GPL have had an attribution clause?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
... in any of its revisions - obviously, it's not something that's been important enough to be added at all.
My understanding is that the presence of an attribution clause would restrict the defined freedoms, but this is where I have my ponder; is it not part of the notional freedom to receive proper credit for your work, because without that credit your work can be disassociated from yourself. If the attribution is already present in the copyright of the work, namely the copyright owner, then hasn't credit already been given just by the presence of a correctly GPL'd work?
If you are wondering what triggered this ponder, it is http://www.fsdaily.com/blog/you-keep-using-phrase-operating-system ... where I get the impression that there's a desire to restrict the credit that Linus gets for creating the component that had been missing for the GNU project to be able to be used as part of a free operating system. And don't get me started on pondering why it shouldn't be Linux/GNU/MIT/Apache/BSD...
Post a Comment