gnupic: GNUPIC or not GNUPIC?
Subject:
Re: GNUPIC or not GNUPIC?
From:
Scott Dattalo ####@####.####
Date:
12 Apr 2001 14:05:24 -0000
Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0104112232520.23525-100000@tempest2.blackhat.net>
On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> It appears that the message I sent to Scott was forwarded to a mailing
> list, although I wasn't cc'ed on the replies. Thus, I have seen some but
> not all of the comments concerning the issue of GNUPIC's name, and I will
> comment on those I have seen in this message.
My intention was to solicit opinions from those who would be affected the most
then collect that information into a well informed response. Your question was
directed to me and I intended to respond back to you. Hopefully you weren't
offended by me going through the list first.
>
> As I said in my first message, you are not obligated in any way to make
> GNUPIC become part of the GNU project.
>
> The reason that we ask that all programs that are called "GNU" be made
> officially into GNU project is that the GNU project is based in a
> philosophy of freedom. The "GNU" name stands for software freedom, and
> for the philosophy of the GNU project. We want to make sure that all
> programs that call themselves GNU stand for this philosophy of freedom as
> well.
>
> Of course, lots of people who write and release free software (even under
> the GNU GPL) don't agree with us, and we don't ask that they agree with
> us. All our welcome to use our license for their software, whether or not
> they agree with our philosophy.
>
> However, since the name "GNU" always stands for this philosophy, we want
> to make sure that things that projects that call themselves GNU join with
> us in supporting that philosophy. Also, we want to make sure that all GNU
> programs work together well, and we can only do that if the maintainers of
> various GNU programs collaborate together.
>
> We do not wish to pressure you to subscribe to a philosophy that you don't
> agree with. So, if it turns out you don't agree with our philosophy to
> feel comfortable making your program GNU software, it's best to change
> your name. That way, no one will assume you agree with us because of your
> name.
>
> Of course, we hope that you'll decide to join the GNU project and
> subscribe to our philosophy, but the choice is completely up to you.
>
> If any of you have questions about all this, I am happy to answer them.
>
Here's a little history about the gnupic project.
I'm actually the third generation maintainer. It was originally started by Rick
Miller back around ~95 (my guess). Rick collected all of the development tools
that he could find for the PIC microprocessor and put them together at his site.
He decided to call this the "GNUPIC project". At some point he lost
interest/time and James Bowman took over. This was around 97. In addition to
taking over the maintainance, James also started gpasm. In the spring of '98 I
started gpsim and working with James on gpasm. In the Fall of '99 I purchase the
www.gnupic.org domain name and volunteered to take over the maintainance.( BTW,
Eric Smith hosts the site for free.)
Many, many people have contributed to the software efforts of the gnupic
project. Most notably are Ralf Forsberg in his work on gpsim's gui and more
recently Craig Franklin's efforts (major rewrites) on gpasm.
-------
I'm quite surprised at the number of responses I've gotten over this post. Most
have them been private - and I probably will not have time to respond to
each. Those opposed were somewhat disturbed with Bradly's tone. But most of you
were supportive of the idea of associating gnupic with the GNU. The reason cited
most was that it would increase our exposure.
But, I don't see how being officially sanctioned by GNU will really help gnupic
in the slightest. There are numerous GPL'd projects out there not affiliated
with GNU. The ones that are don't seem to make a big deal about it. Take GTK+
for example. I see no mention on their web page of them being a member of GNU.
OTOH, I can see why GNU would want a high quality project like GTK+ to fall
under its auspices - it helps validate the message RMS has been pushing for
nearly 20 years.
It seems the only true pre-requisite required to get FSF's blessing is licensing
the project under GPL. Since gpasm and gpsim already meet this requirement, I
see no reason why we should not become officially affiliated. So unless there
are severe objections or convincing arguments againsts it, I'm going to proceed
with the formal ties. If for some reason this process fails, then it fails. I'm
not going to change the name of GNUPIC to anything else.
So Bradley, tell me what needs to happen for GNUPIC to become GNU'd.
Aside:
-----
There's another "gnupic" web site out there ran by Paul Vollebregt:
http://huizen.dds.nl/~gnupic/
Apparently Rick Miller had sanctioned Paul to mirror the gnupic site. I'm not
clear about the entire history, but Paul has forked this site to encompass more
than PIC processors. Unfortunately, he's not keeping the site up-to-date. The
two biggest GNUPIC projects, gpsim and gpasm, are referenced with links that are
about 2 years old. When or perhaps even before "our GNUPIC" site becomes
formally recognized by FSF, we'll need to reconcile Paul's GNUPIC site.
-----
Any comments or suggestions?
Scott
