Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #8510 > unrolled thread

Re: How do you pronounce Linux?

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: How do you pronounce Linux? Kevin <kevhod@gmail.com> - 2013-06-19 04:11 -0700
    Re: How do you pronounce Linux? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2013-06-19 12:32 -0400
    Re: How do you pronounce Linux? Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2013-06-20 04:43 +0200
      Re: How do you pronounce Linux? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-06-20 12:27 +0000
        Re: How do you pronounce Linux? Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2013-06-20 15:30 +0200
          Re: How do you pronounce Linux? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-06-22 07:21 +0000
            Re: How do you pronounce Linux? Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2013-06-22 09:37 +0200
              Re: How do you pronounce Linux? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-06-24 08:40 +0000
                Re: How do you pronounce Linux? Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2013-06-25 03:56 +0000
                  Re: How do you pronounce Linux? Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2013-06-25 07:02 +0200
        Re: How do you pronounce Linux? Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> - 2013-06-20 08:31 -0700
    Re: How do you pronounce Linux? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-06-20 12:20 +0000

#8510 — Re: How do you pronounce Linux?

Here is a video of Linus Torvalds clarifying the pronunciation of both his own name and the Linux kernel.  Watch it and make up your own mind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAEsoKiZTvk

On Tuesday, January 21, 1997 3:00:00 AM UTC-5, James McIninch wrote:
> Someone calling themselves Kan Yuenyong wrote:
> ) I don't use native english language, so don't know how 'LINUX'
> ) pronounce.
> 
> Since the author of Linux is dutch, I assume it is pronounced according
> to their pronounciation: lee-nooks.
> 
> 
> ) I found some text it's describe as 'Lih-nuchs', don't know what it is.
> ) Does it pronounce as lee-nook like 'we' and 'book' or Lai-narck 
> ) like 'my' and 'huck'?
> 
> ) Thanks in advance,
> ) Kan./
> 
> --
> ---
> James McIninch

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#8512

On Wed, 19 Jun 2013, Kevin wrote:

> Here is a video of Linus Torvalds clarifying the pronunciation of both his own name and the Linux kernel.  Watch it and make up your own mind.
>
And you just had to reply to a 16 year old message?

Google isn't usenet, don't think that what you see at google is what we 
see over here.  Google still hasn't fixed the bug that allows replies to 
messages older than 30 days, but that doens't mean people shouldn't show 
common sense and not reply to older messages.  I can't even figure out why 
you were scrolling back 16 years, or what combination of search landed you 
on this old message that you just had to reply to.

    Michael



> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAEsoKiZTvk
>
> On Tuesday, January 21, 1997 3:00:00 AM UTC-5, James McIninch wrote:
>> Someone calling themselves Kan Yuenyong wrote:
>> ) I don't use native english language, so don't know how 'LINUX'
>> ) pronounce.
>>
>> Since the author of Linux is dutch, I assume it is pronounced according
>> to their pronounciation: lee-nooks.
>>
>>
>> ) I found some text it's describe as 'Lih-nuchs', don't know what it is.
>> ) Does it pronounce as lee-nook like 'we' and 'book' or Lai-narck
>> ) like 'my' and 'huck'?
>>
>> ) Thanks in advance,
>> ) Kan./
>>
>> --
>> ---
>> James McIninch
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8517

Please don't top post.  [Corrected, and piggybacking as I didn't see the 
original post - probably killed off by my filter on Google Groups.]

On Wednesday 19 June 2013 13:11, Kevin conveyed the following to 
comp.os.linux.misc...

> On Tuesday, January 21, 1997 3:00:00 AM UTC-5, James McIninch wrote:
>> Someone calling themselves Kan Yuenyong wrote:
>
>> ) I don't use native english language, so don't know how 'LINUX'
>> ) pronounce.
>> 
>> Since the author of Linux is dutch, [...]

Linus Torvalds, the author and principal developer of the Linux kernel 
is most certainly not Dutch.  He comes from a Swedish-speaking minority 
in Finland, and he has in the meantime since his graduation from the 
University of Helsinki - where he was still studying when he wrote the 
very first versions of Linux - and since his wedding relocated to the 
United States of America with his family.

Also note that Linux is only the kernel of the operating system.  The 
rest of the operating system itself - i.e. the tool chain, the utilities 
and the libraries - come from the GNU project, which was already created 
in 1983-1984 by Richard Stallman, who founded the Free Software 
Foundation shortly afterwards.  

Richard Stallman (or "RMS" for friends) was himself the principal author 
of gcc (orginally the GNU C Compiler, now the GNU Compiler Collective) 
and the GNU Emacs editor.  While working at the artificial intelligence 
labs at MIT in the early 1980s, Stallman got frustrated over the fact 
that he was not allowed to share his code with friends and coworkers 
because of MIT's claim of ownership of that code.  This is what inspired 
him to create the Free Software [*] movement.  He set out to create a 
UNIX-like operating system, GNU, completely licensed as Free Software - 
that which is now often called Open Source - and based upon a 
revolutionary microkernel design.  

However, even though all of the software was quickly written up and of 
exceptional code quality, the microkernel remained a work in progress 
and was rather slow.  By consequence, the GNU userland software was 
mainly used with other (in the meantime Free Software) kernels such as 
the FreeBSD or NetBSD kernels, but given that those operating systems 
have a complete and fully functional userland of their own, there was 
little incentive for anyone to use the GNU userland.  Until Linus 
Torvalds came along.

In 1991, Linus was studying at the University of Helsinki and was using 
Minix on his own i386 computer.  Minix is a UNIX-like operating system 
written for educational purposes by Professor Andrew Tanenbaum.  
However, Linus's computer was a 32-bit machine, and Minix was at the 
time only 16-bit, and although its license allowed for studying the code 
- that was its purpose, after all - the license did not allow modifying 
the code.  So Linus set out to write his own UNIX-like kernel.  At first 
he still used the tools available in Minix to do the job, but eventually 
he got more acquainted with the GNU project and he started using the GNU 
tools.  Linus Torvalds wrote an excellent kernel but did not write any 
userland, and GNU was an excellent userland without a working kernel of 
its own.  It was a match made in heaven.

So this is how the operating system which most people now refer to as 
"Linux" was born, even though it should more correctly be called 
GNU/Linux - or "GNU plus Linux", as Richard Stallman now calls it - 
because Linux without GNU is only being used in embedded devices - e.g. 
in routers, or as part of Android.  Calling it "GNU Linux" without a 
slash or some other separator wouldn't be correct either, because Linux 
- the kernel - is not part of the GNU project.  It was obviously 
developed separately, albeit that Linus Torvalds did like and adopt the 
GNU General Public License, version 2.  (He doesn't like version 3.)


[*] There appears to be a persistent confusion over the term Free
    Software versus Freeware.  Freeware is proprietary software of which
    the use is free of charge, but you have no access to the source code
    and you are not allowed to reverse-engineer the code and/or modify
    it in any way.  Free Software is software which may or may not be
    distributed commercially - e.g. RedHat EL is Free Software, but it
    is only available from RedHat itself as a commercial bundle, which
    includes a support contract - but of which the source code is freely
    accessible, and this source code may be modified and redistributed,
    under certain conditions specified in the license.  The BSD license
    for instance is more permissive than the GNU GPL.  The difference
    between Free Software and Open Source Software is a semantic one.
    It's essentially the same thing, but the Free Software Foundation
    are freedom activists, whereas the Open Source Initiative puts the
    emphasis on the code quality attained by opening up the source code
    to the rest of the world and having more people collaborate on the
    project.  Both viewpoints are valid, but considering the emphasis
    of each, both groups don't necessarily see eye to eye on everything.

-- 
= Aragorn =
  GNU/Linux user #223157 - http://www.linuxcounter.net

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8521

On 2013-06-20, Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:
>     it in any way.  Free Software is software which may or may not be
>     distributed commercially - e.g. RedHat EL is Free Software, but it
>     is only available from RedHat itself as a commercial bundle, which

No. Redhat ELsoftware is specifically released under GPL, and any
further restrictions (eg restrictions which they have at times tried to
impose related to trademarks etc) are clearly in violation of the GPL
and can thus be ignored. Their support contract is proprietary, but the
software is not. 

>     includes a support contract - but of which the source code is freely
>     accessible, and this source code may be modified and redistributed,
>     under certain conditions specified in the license.  The BSD license
No it can be redistributed under the GPL, and any parts of their license
which are more restrictive than the GPL are essentially null and void. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8523

On Thursday 20 June 2013 14:27, unruh conveyed the following to 
comp.os.linux.misc...

> On 2013-06-20, Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:
>
>>     it in any way.  Free Software is software which may or may not be
>>     distributed commercially - e.g. RedHat EL is Free Software, but
>>     it is only available from RedHat itself as a commercial bundle,
>>     which
> 
> No. Redhat ELsoftware is specifically released under GPL, and any
> further restrictions (eg restrictions which they have at times tried
> to impose related to trademarks etc) are clearly in violation of the
> GPL and can thus be ignored. Their support contract is proprietary,
> but the software is not.

Uhh, that's what I said, Bill.

> 
>>     includes a support contract - but of which the source code is
>>     freely accessible, and this source code may be modified and
>>     redistributed, under certain conditions specified in the license. 
>>     The BSD license
>
> No it can be redistributed under the GPL, and any parts of their
> license which are more restrictive than the GPL are essentially null
> and void.

I did say that it's redistributable under the GPL, Bill...

-- 
= Aragorn =
  GNU/Linux user #223157 - http://www.linuxcounter.net

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8541

On 2013-06-20, Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:
> On Thursday 20 June 2013 14:27, unruh conveyed the following to 
> comp.os.linux.misc...
>
>> On 2013-06-20, Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>     it in any way.  Free Software is software which may or may not be
>>>     distributed commercially - e.g. RedHat EL is Free Software, but
>>>     it is only available from RedHat itself as a commercial bundle,
>>>     which

>> 
>> No. Redhat ELsoftware is specifically released under GPL, and any
>> further restrictions (eg restrictions which they have at times tried
>> to impose related to trademarks etc) are clearly in violation of the
>> GPL and can thus be ignored. Their support contract is proprietary,
>> but the software is not.
>
> Uhh, that's what I said, Bill.

?? Sorry that was not how \i read 'It is only available from Redhat
itself as a commercial bundle'
>
>> 
>>>     includes a support contract - but of which the source code is
>>>     freely accessible, and this source code may be modified and
>>>     redistributed, under certain conditions specified in the license. 

'Under certain condition  specified under the licence' is again for me
again ambiguous. In particular Redhat has tried very hard to claim that
you CANNOT resistribute it because of the existence of trademarks and
copyrighted graphics embedded in the code. It was those (contrary to the
GPL) items I assumed you were refereing to when you said 'under certain
conditions'. 


>>>     The BSD license
>>
>> No it can be redistributed under the GPL, and any parts of their
>> license which are more restrictive than the GPL are essentially null
>> and void.
>
> I did say that it's redistributable under the GPL, Bill...

You also said 'under certain conditions' and I took those to refer to
something othr than simply the conditions that the GPL has.


>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8542

On Saturday 22 June 2013 09:21, unruh conveyed the following to 
comp.os.linux.misc...

> On 2013-06-20, Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday 20 June 2013 14:27, unruh conveyed the following to
>> comp.os.linux.misc...
>>
>>> On 2013-06-20, Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>     it in any way.  Free Software is software which may or may not
>>>>     be distributed commercially - e.g. RedHat EL is Free Software,
>>>>     but it is only available from RedHat itself as a commercial
>>>>     bundle, which
> 
>>> 
>>> No. Redhat ELsoftware is specifically released under GPL, and any
>>> further restrictions (eg restrictions which they have at times tried
>>> to impose related to trademarks etc) are clearly in violation of the
>>> GPL and can thus be ignored. Their support contract is proprietary,
>>> but the software is not.
>>
>> Uhh, that's what I said, Bill.
> 
> ?? Sorry that was not how \i read 'It is only available from Redhat
> itself as a commercial bundle'

That was a reference in particular to RedHat Enterprise Linux, which is 
a commercial bundle, comprised of Free Software, possibly a few bits of 
proprietary software and a limited support contract.  There was a hyphen 
separating that part about RedHat from the rest of my sentence. ;-)

That said, those who do actually want to use a RHEL without paying for 
it and without the support contract can always download CentOS, which is 
identical to RedHat (in terms of the software packages) except for the 
branding, the omission of non-free software and of course the absence of 
a support contract.

>>>>     includes a support contract - but of which the source code is
>>>>     freely accessible, and this source code may be modified and
>>>>     redistributed, under certain conditions specified in the
>>>>     license.
> 
> 'Under certain condition  specified under the licence' is again for me
> again ambiguous. In particular Redhat has tried very hard to claim
> that you CANNOT resistribute it because of the existence of trademarks
> and copyrighted graphics embedded in the code. It was those (contrary
> to the GPL) items I assumed you were refereing to when you said 'under
> certain conditions'.

No, that was a general reference to the restrictions (if any) specified 
in the GNU General Public License or any other Free Software License.

>>>>     The BSD license
>>>
>>> No it can be redistributed under the GPL, and any parts of their
>>> license which are more restrictive than the GPL are essentially null
>>> and void.
>>
>> I did say that it's redistributable under the GPL, Bill...
> 
> You also said 'under certain conditions' and I took those to refer to
> something othr than simply the conditions that the GPL has.

No, I was referencing the conditions stipulated in the GPL itself, such 
as that GPL'd code or derivatives thereof may not be redistributed under 
a proprietary license.

-- 
= Aragorn =
  GNU/Linux user #223157 - http://www.linuxcounter.net

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8562

On 2013-06-22, Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:
> On Saturday 22 June 2013 09:21, unruh conveyed the following to 
> comp.os.linux.misc...
>
>> On 2013-06-20, Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday 20 June 2013 14:27, unruh conveyed the following to
>>> comp.os.linux.misc...
>>>
>>>> On 2013-06-20, Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>     it in any way.  Free Software is software which may or may not
>>>>>     be distributed commercially - e.g. RedHat EL is Free Software,
>>>>>     but it is only available from RedHat itself as a commercial
>>>>>     bundle, which
>> 
>>>> 
>>>> No. Redhat ELsoftware is specifically released under GPL, and any
>>>> further restrictions (eg restrictions which they have at times tried
>>>> to impose related to trademarks etc) are clearly in violation of the
>>>> GPL and can thus be ignored. Their support contract is proprietary,
>>>> but the software is not.
>>>
>>> Uhh, that's what I said, Bill.
>> 
>> ?? Sorry that was not how \i read 'It is only available from Redhat
>> itself as a commercial bundle'
>
> That was a reference in particular to RedHat Enterprise Linux, which is 
> a commercial bundle, comprised of Free Software, possibly a few bits of 
> proprietary software and a limited support contract.  There was a hyphen 
> separating that part about RedHat from the rest of my sentence. ;-)
>
> That said, those who do actually want to use a RHEL without paying for 
> it and without the support contract can always download CentOS, which is 
> identical to RedHat (in terms of the software packages) except for the 
> branding, the omission of non-free software and of course the absence of 
> a support contract.

Agreed. However, the GPL explicitly states that any attempt to reduce
the rights of the user, including proprietary software, trademarks, etc.
invalidates the permission to distribute the GPL material. Redhat does
use trademarks/proprietary software to attempt to limit theuserr's
rights to run and distribute the GPL software. That means that Redhat
has no right to distribute the software, (but anyone who gets it does
have the right to use and distrribute it). 
The support contract is of course up to them, but the updates to the
software is also GPL and if it is distributed to anyone it must be
available (or can be made available) to all. Redhat has long tried hard
to skirt the legal edges of the GPL, spending most of their time outside
those edges. 



>
>>>>>     includes a support contract - but of which the source code is
>>>>>     freely accessible, and this source code may be modified and
>>>>>     redistributed, under certain conditions specified in the
>>>>>     license.
>> 
>> 'Under certain condition  specified under the licence' is again for me
>> again ambiguous. In particular Redhat has tried very hard to claim
>> that you CANNOT resistribute it because of the existence of trademarks
>> and copyrighted graphics embedded in the code. It was those (contrary
>> to the GPL) items I assumed you were refereing to when you said 'under
>> certain conditions'.
>
> No, that was a general reference to the restrictions (if any) specified 
> in the GNU General Public License or any other Free Software License.

OK. 


>
>>>>>     The BSD license
>>>>
>>>> No it can be redistributed under the GPL, and any parts of their
>>>> license which are more restrictive than the GPL are essentially null
>>>> and void.
>>>
>>> I did say that it's redistributable under the GPL, Bill...
>> 
>> You also said 'under certain conditions' and I took those to refer to
>> something othr than simply the conditions that the GPL has.
>
> No, I was referencing the conditions stipulated in the GPL itself, such 
> as that GPL'd code or derivatives thereof may not be redistributed under 
> a proprietary license.

OK. Sorry for the misinterpretation. 

>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8569

On 2013-06-24, unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote:
> On 2013-06-22, Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:
>> On Saturday 22 June 2013 09:21, unruh conveyed the following to 
>> comp.os.linux.misc...
>>
>>> On 2013-06-20, Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thursday 20 June 2013 14:27, unruh conveyed the following to
>>>> comp.os.linux.misc...
>>>>
>>>>> On 2013-06-20, Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>     it in any way.  Free Software is software which may or may not
>>>>>>     be distributed commercially - e.g. RedHat EL is Free Software,
>>>>>>     but it is only available from RedHat itself as a commercial
>>>>>>     bundle, which
>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> No. Redhat ELsoftware is specifically released under GPL, and any
>>>>> further restrictions (eg restrictions which they have at times tried
>>>>> to impose related to trademarks etc) are clearly in violation of the
>>>>> GPL and can thus be ignored. Their support contract is proprietary,
>>>>> but the software is not.
>>>>
>>>> Uhh, that's what I said, Bill.
>>> 
>>> ?? Sorry that was not how \i read 'It is only available from Redhat
>>> itself as a commercial bundle'
>>
>> That was a reference in particular to RedHat Enterprise Linux, which is 
>> a commercial bundle, comprised of Free Software, possibly a few bits of 
>> proprietary software and a limited support contract.  There was a hyphen 
>> separating that part about RedHat from the rest of my sentence. ;-)
>>
>> That said, those who do actually want to use a RHEL without paying for 
>> it and without the support contract can always download CentOS, which is 
>> identical to RedHat (in terms of the software packages) except for the 
>> branding, the omission of non-free software and of course the absence of 
>> a support contract.
>
> Agreed. However, the GPL explicitly states that any attempt to reduce
> the rights of the user, including proprietary software, trademarks, etc.
> invalidates the permission to distribute the GPL material. Redhat does
> use trademarks/proprietary software to attempt to limit theuserr's
> rights to run and distribute the GPL software. That means that Redhat
> has no right to distribute the software, (but anyone who gets it does
> have the right to use and distrribute it). 
> The support contract is of course up to them, but the updates to the
> software is also GPL and if it is distributed to anyone it must be
> available (or can be made available) to all. Redhat has long tried hard
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> to skirt the legal edges of the GPL, spending most of their time outside
> those edges. 

There's a rather subtle issue with the highlighted phrase above:

If HatRed distributes GPL software to someone (let's call that
person party B), HatRed is under _NO_ obligation to distribute
said GPL software to anyone else.  Neither is party B obligated
to redistribute said GPL software.

What the GPL requires is that HatRed cannot prohibit party B (who
received the software from HatRed) from redistributing it to
anyone else party B wishes to redistribute it to.  I agree HatRed
has spent a great deal of their recent time outside the lines.

-- 
Robert Riches
spamtrap42@jacob21819.net
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8570

On Tuesday 25 June 2013 05:56, Robert Riches conveyed the following to 
comp.os.linux.misc...

> On 2013-06-24, unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote:
>> On 2013-06-22, Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:
>>> On Saturday 22 June 2013 09:21, unruh conveyed the following to
>>> comp.os.linux.misc...
>>>
>>>> On 2013-06-20, Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thursday 20 June 2013 14:27, unruh conveyed the following to
>>>>> comp.os.linux.misc...
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2013-06-20, Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     it in any way.  Free Software is software which may or may
>>>>>>>     not be distributed commercially - e.g. RedHat EL is Free
>>>>>>>     Software, but it is only available from RedHat itself as a
>>>>>>>     commercial bundle, which
>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> No. Redhat ELsoftware is specifically released under GPL, and any
>>>>>> further restrictions (eg restrictions which they have at times
>>>>>> tried to impose related to trademarks etc) are clearly in
>>>>>> violation of the GPL and can thus be ignored. Their support
>>>>>> contract is proprietary, but the software is not.
>>>>>
>>>>> Uhh, that's what I said, Bill.
>>>> 
>>>> ?? Sorry that was not how \i read 'It is only available from Redhat
>>>> itself as a commercial bundle'
>>>
>>> That was a reference in particular to RedHat Enterprise Linux, which
>>> is a commercial bundle, comprised of Free Software, possibly a few
>>> bits of
>>> proprietary software and a limited support contract.  There was a
>>> hyphen separating that part about RedHat from the rest of my
>>> sentence. ;-)
>>>
>>> That said, those who do actually want to use a RHEL without paying
>>> for it and without the support contract can always download CentOS,
>>> which is identical to RedHat (in terms of the software packages)
>>> except for the branding, the omission of non-free software and of
>>> course the absence of a support contract.
>>
>> Agreed. However, the GPL explicitly states that any attempt to reduce
>> the rights of the user, including proprietary software, trademarks,
>> etc. invalidates the permission to distribute the GPL material.
>> Redhat does use trademarks/proprietary software to attempt to limit
>> theuserr's rights to run and distribute the GPL software. That means
>> that Redhat has no right to distribute the software, (but anyone who
>> gets it does have the right to use and distrribute it).
>> The support contract is of course up to them, but the updates to the
>> software is also GPL and if it is distributed to anyone it must be
>> available (or can be made available) to all. Redhat has long tried
>> hard
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> to skirt the legal edges of the GPL, spending most of their time
>> outside those edges.
> 
> There's a rather subtle issue with the highlighted phrase above:
> 
> If HatRed distributes GPL software to someone (let's call that
> person party B), HatRed is under _NO_ obligation to distribute
> said GPL software to anyone else.  Neither is party B obligated
> to redistribute said GPL software.
> 
> What the GPL requires is that HatRed cannot prohibit party B (who
> received the software from HatRed) from redistributing it to
> anyone else party B wishes to redistribute it to.  I agree HatRed
> has spent a great deal of their recent time outside the lines.

I guess they're just trying very hard to be an Oracle clone. ;-)

-- 
= Aragorn =
  GNU/Linux user #223157 - http://www.linuxcounter.net

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8524

On 2013-06-20, unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote:
> No. Redhat ELsoftware is specifically released under GPL, and any
> further restrictions (eg restrictions which they have at times tried to
> impose related to trademarks etc) are clearly in violation of the GPL
> and can thus be ignored. Their support contract is proprietary, but the
> software is not. 

This sounds suspiciously like the usual confusion over aggregation vs.
modified versions.

--keith


-- 
kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8520

On 2013-06-19, Kevin <kevhod@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here is a video of Linus Torvalds clarifying the pronunciation of both his own name and the Linux kernel.  Watch it and make up your own mind.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAEsoKiZTvk

Mind you it is obvious that he has a broad Scandinavian accent in
English, And thus his pronunciation must be normalised by that fact.
Since we know now the word Linus is pronounced in English, we can then
infer what he was trying to say (were it not for his accent) when he
pronounced Linux. :-)
>
> On Tuesday, January 21, 1997 3:00:00 AM UTC-5, James McIninch wrote:
>> Someone calling themselves Kan Yuenyong wrote:
>> ) I don't use native english language, so don't know how 'LINUX'
>> ) pronounce.
>> 
>> Since the author of Linux is dutch, I assume it is pronounced according
>> to their pronounciation: lee-nooks.

Except he is not Dutch.
>> 
>> 
>> ) I found some text it's describe as 'Lih-nuchs', don't know what it is.
>> ) Does it pronounce as lee-nook like 'we' and 'book' or Lai-narck 
>> ) like 'my' and 'huck'?
>> 
>> ) Thanks in advance,
>> ) Kan./

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc

csiph-web