> In any case, RMS is absolutely right about people not giving GNU enough credit in naming or in general.
If RMS wanted acknowledgement as a precondition for using components developed/maintained by GNU (or derivatives of those components), he should have included such a provision in the licensing of the components.
Its hardly as if RMS is a stranger to using licensing restrictions to achieving the world he wants to achieve.
Time was, gpl advocates would get all het up over the version of bsd that required derivative projects add in an acknowledgement statement, because making them do that was unfree.
So it's verbosity alone that makes "GNU/Linux" not just acceptable but morally required but "This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors." just beyond the pale. That explains a lot about RMS.
If RMS wanted acknowledgement as a precondition for using components developed/maintained by GNU (or derivatives of those components), he should have included such a provision in the licensing of the components.
Its hardly as if RMS is a stranger to using licensing restrictions to achieving the world he wants to achieve.