|Summary:||Gentoo init not giving Richard Stallman & Co. enough credit; outdated copyright notice|
|Product:||Gentoo Linux||Reporter:||Travers Buda <traversbuda>|
|Component:||[OLD] baselayout||Assignee:||Gentoo's Team for Core System packages <base-system>|
|URL:||ough credit; outdated copyright notice|
|Package list:||Runtime testing required:||---|
Description Travers Buda 2005-04-16 21:14:19 UTC
The Gentoo init, says Gentoo Linux http://www.gentoo.org Copyright 1999-2004 Gentoo Foundation Distributed under the GPLv2 I don't think this is giving enough credit to Richard Stallman and Company. I would rather have it say Gentoo GNU/Linux. I could launch into all the philiosophical reasons, but I'll spare you. Fact is, Richard is the dreamer, not the idolized Linus who dosen't fully believe in the open source movement. Also, the copyright year ought to be updated. Offending file:/sbin/rc Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce:
Comment 1 Brian Harring (RETIRED) 2005-04-16 21:54:41 UTC
I'd also like credit given to the portage crew, for the portageq calls that are used in the baselayout. Technically we should be mentioned also, since our utility is one of the dozen that is used to build the system that the baselayout utilizes.
Comment 2 Brian Harring (RETIRED) 2005-04-16 21:57:06 UTC
Re: copyright, no, if the file hasn't changed since '04, it shouldn't be.
Comment 3 SpanKY 2005-04-16 22:07:19 UTC
the copyright has been updated long ago in newer baselayouts, you're just using an outdated version as for the GNU/Linux, we dont subscribe to such cruft if it offends you, use Debian, you'll fit right in
Comment 4 Greg Kroah-Hartman (RETIRED) 2005-04-16 22:11:27 UTC
Close this one.
Comment 5 Travers Buda 2005-04-17 21:28:32 UTC
I have realized the errors of my ways. Gentoo supports more than the Linux kernel. We should just plain call our OS Gentoo. Not Gentoo/BSD, not Gentoo Linux, not Gentoo GNU/Linux. Just plain Gentoo, because Gentoo stands for customizability. Lets still change the init.
Comment 6 SpanKY 2005-04-17 22:49:47 UTC
maybe i didnt make this clear stop wasting our time, this change is never going in
Comment 7 Travers Buda 2005-04-18 05:04:53 UTC
Ok, you know what? You're being really cold. I may be ignorant or something, but you don't have to be a jerk about it with lines like 'stop wasting our time.' Way to uphold the good character of the Gentoo community. Perhaps you would like to respond as to why the second idea is also a bad one. I'm open to it; so don't just plain tell me to go away. You're spouting the kind of attitude I'd find in #debian or something, spanKY. I've got an idea, you tell me to STFU. So don't tell me I'm some sort of elitist. Also, I'm not using dated baselayouts--I'm on baselayout-1.11.10-r7 in which the copyright says 2004. Moreover on the copyright date issue, init is proclaiming copyright over Gentoo in general, so yes, it does need to be changed. I'm sure you have to put up with a few dumb bugs. Maybe this is a dumb idea; perhaps some other people can articulate it better. Pay attention to the poll as well. http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-227412.html If you're going to tell me to STFU, then say why. Otherwise that's like telling someone to RTFM without giving them a link. I thought the Gentoo community was more helpfull than that.
Comment 8 Seemant Kulleen (RETIRED) 2005-04-18 05:59:25 UTC
Sorry, but when Gentoo was created, that's how it was named. People don't have to like it. But there it is! Additionally, _after_ we have an init that works with BSD and other things, we'll consider changing the rc script to reflect that. Till then, Linux is our primary and only focus, so the Linux bit stays. As for giving Stallman credit, it's not a big issue. Gentoo started out life as Gentoo Linux, and you and everyone who uses Gentoo have been using it. We discussed the possibility of going with GNU/Linux about 2 years ago. Only a small minority of developers supported and the issue simply isn't big enough for us to keep discussing it. If and when we get to a point where larger bugs have been fixed (you can do a bugzilla query to see what's on our plates), we may revisit it. Till then, sorry, but we'd like to stick with what we like.
Comment 9 Ciaran McCreesh 2005-04-18 09:25:53 UTC
You realise that we use that same init setup on non-GNU systems already, right? It runs quite happily with Linux/uclibc+busybox.
Comment 10 Luca Barbato 2005-04-18 11:01:17 UTC
Travers (I hope that is the name), the base system team is swamped of bugs, and probably some of us didn't respond you in way we are known to reply. Sorry, we are human and we are quite busy and that is volunteer work. That bug should have been closed at the first reply with INVALID and the Ciaranm's explanations about why that doesn't apply.
Comment 11 Travers Buda 2005-04-18 13:46:37 UTC
I think I've over-reacted as well atleast twice now, sorry. I realize that there is much work to do on behalf of the developers, and yes, it is all volunteer work. I should be grateful for the comprehensive init that I have. Ciaran, yes, I do now realize that the init can be run on GNUless systems; my original suggestion for GNU/Linux was absurd. I suppose that Gentoo's focus is Linux, and that should be reflected. Since changing the init isn't practical or utilitarian, it really is a trivial matter. But, philosophically speaking, there just seems to be disparity between the philosophy behind the linux kernel and GNU, and when the latter is forgotten, I can get a little offended. To conclude, I'm sorry; thanks for putting up with me.