Re: [Fsuk-manchester] GNU/Linux and free speech

[Andy Halsall]

> I agree with this. There are non-GNU based operating systems that use
> the Linux kernel. There aren't a lot of GNU based operating systems
> that do not use the Linux kernel. It will be interesting if over time
> we have a new kernel, but everything else seems the same -- will
> people still call it "Linux"? Is "Linux," really more than just a
> kernel in the hearts and minds of the world?

Your suggestion here appears to be that Linux has become synonymous with 
 Kernel, albeit specifically an open source and free kernel, however I 
would disagree, Linux is a very specific piece of (extremely important) 
software, but I wouldn't refer to BSD or OpenSolaris (or for that matter 
the NT Kernel) as Linux, even if they were all as Open and as Free as 
Linux currently is, even if they were almost indistinguishable in 
software terms (which apart from some elements of function they clearly 
are not).  Linux is a specific project with its own methods of working 
and with a very specific community surrounding it.

I would however refer to a mix of GNU tools and a BSD kernel (or any 
kernel project) as GNU/BSD (or more accurately GNU/$kernel).  It 
provides attribution, it allows you to determine what you are using and 
to a degree gives you an insight into the philosophies, both in terms of 
design, community and freedoms involved. Pretty much as you describe here:

> However, in the case of the GNU project, I believe it is important to
> use the GNU name, and not so that people understand who wrote the
> source code, but because it connects intimately with two things: 1) a
> philosophy, and 2) a community. 

So I think we agree on that.

> In 1887 the German sociologist Ferdinand Tonnies introduced two
> categories, gesellschaft and gemeinschaft, each describing two normal
> types of human association. 
>
> Tonnies, looked at the category of gemeinschaft,
...
> Tonnies describes the gesselschaft,

I would suggest that the descriptions you provide are accurate to a 
point yet simplistic (I am not overly familiar with Tönnies 
unfortunately so I apologise in advance if I am far from the mark), 
Germany even now is culturally different from what could haphazardly be 
referred to as English culture (including the UK, US,AUS,NZ,CAN etc..).

The German language allows, possibly even demands a far more formal form 
of communication.  This has permeated to some degree into the culture, I 
wouldn't dream of referring to a stranger I met in Germany as 'Du', I 
would use 'Sie', once a relationship has been formed both parties may 
slip into more informal language, but not at the outset (not sure how 
this applies to current German youth culture but AFAIK it applies in 
general).

The terms Gemainshaft and Gesellshaft are as you pointed out, usually 
translated (poorly in my opinion) into community and association. 
However the context is also important, Gemainsahft and Gesellshaft can 
both refer to formal groupings (where formality and politic are 
important) and arguably the individual is as important as is seen as 
proper.  In my opinion the primary difference is that a Gemainshaft is 
something where decisions and guidance comes from the group (either 
through consensus or by majority) where as a Gesellshaft is something 
that is led by an individual or group, it would have a more traditional 
pyramidal structure.

To apply this to Open Source projects is a little difficult, but I would 
suggest that it is possible to have a Gesellshaft (in the form of a 
project with a leader or leading elements) within which there are 
multiple smaller Gemainshaften it would even be possible for that 
Gesellshaft to be a part of a larger but less focused Gemainshaft.

> So, sure, there is software out there that lacks the GNU system. But
> who cares. Sure we need to use it, and sure gesselschaft connections
> are necessary in life. But, to me, the question is: what are the ways
> we can make those associates more gemeinschaft? I don't know the
> answer, but I do know who to ask -- one place I'd start is to talk to
> people who care about free software and who care about GNU and what it
> represents. And when I have an opportunity, in life, I will try to
> mention GNU, what the project is striving to do, how the work it has
> done in licensing, in community building, and in many other ways has
> spread out into the world in many wonderful and beautiful ways. 

That is a great sentiment and one I partially share, personally I feel 
that being part of the Free Software community is important, the 
communities that surround organisations like the FSF and GNU promote the 
principals that I believe in, I doubt that I would agree with everyone 
on everything (in fact I know I wouldn't) but I feel that the general 
direction that those (and other organisations with similar aims) are 
heading in is right both for me personally and for the wider society and 
 I too promote and try to properly represent the philosophies and 
projects that I believe in.

What I find maddening is the amount of damage that these communities do 
to themselves on occasion when an internal schism occurs, it seems that 
since we are accustomed to having to fight to be heard, and fight to 
survive that when a small (or even large) difference of opinion occurs 
(various projects adopting/not adopting GPL3 springs to mind as one, the 
various splits and forking of organisations campaigning against Software 
patents is another) then some of us turn against each other.  To be fair 
this is probably an important part of what makes our communities work in 
the first place and it is important that people do what they feel is 
right, but on occasion it detracts from the primary focus to such a 
degree that people on the outside can no longer see what that focus is.

Right, well I have totally forgotten what I was actually going to say 
and have rambled on for long enough, so I will leave it there.