GGPL

[a thing]

Lately, especially on Slashdot, I've been seeing a lot of mentions of the GNU General Public License with no mention of GNU or the FSF, it just says "General Public License". This is becoming like GNU/Linux v "Linux": people are just ignoring the issues of freedom, and it could result in the loss of freedom. So I think we we should start calling the GNU General Public License the "GGPL".

[darklordsatan]

Well, its because its actually called GPL and not GGPL ()
Like in the official website.
There is only one GPL, so I dont think there is place for confusion here.

[Cabhan]

When you say 'GPL', everyone knows that it is published by GNU, that it is the biggest copyleft license, etc.

Similarly, most who know about Linux know that GNU played a big role in making it all happen.

I really don't feel that it's necessary to shove 'GNU' onto the front of everything.

[Nihilanth]

When you say 'GPL', everyone knows that it is published by GNU, that it is the biggest copyleft license, etc.

Similarly, most who know about Linux know that GNU played a big role in making it all happen.

I really don't feel that it's necessary to shove 'GNU' onto the front of everything.

Agreed

[Vergil83]

I say no, because to talk about the GPL you have to talk about GNU.

People do talk about Linux, and not talk about GNU (although they are missing something very important). Therefore the GNU is need in this case.

[jaboua]

I don't care about what the license is called, it might as well be called the "microsoft license", as long as it's a free license, it doesn't matter to me.

[valan]

I agree, no need to shove GNU in front of everything. Anyone who knows anything about Linux and/or the GPL already know GNU has a lot to do with it. The GNU/Linux term is also the same in my mind, anyone who knows anything about their distros knows if it uses GNU software or not (note that in no way do you need to use ANY GNU software to have a complete Linux distro). I'm not gonna take anything away from GNU, I support them and am glad that they have done what they did and do what they do, I just don't see the need to put their name all over everything they have anything to do with.

[Vergil83]

anyone who knows anything about their distros knows if it uses GNU software.

That is the point! Not everyone knows anything. There are many new GNU/Linux users that have no clue about the history of it or how it was developed. As it becomes more popular this will only grow.

note that in no way do you need to use ANY GNU software to have a complete Linux distro

do you have an example of this ever being done?

[Cabhan]

That said, is it such a horrible thing? While I agree that it's good for people to know the history of their OS, to prevent ignorance, does knowing that GNU played a part really change their use of Linux?

It's like with Windows. Very few people know that MS-DOS was originally QDOS. While such history is interesting, there is no reason that one must know it.


Basically, those who care already know. Those who don't care still won't, no matter how many times it's thrown at them.

[Vergil83]

does knowing that GNU played a part really change their use of Linux?

Yes, that is one of the difference between open source and free software.

For open source, what matters is that the software is better.

For free software, the ethical and moral choices that go along with the software is what matters most.