[pp.int.general] Significance of use of Free and proprietary software in a political context

[Richard M Stallman]

    >    Could be, however Obama is a pragmatist - the election campaign  
    > used
    >    Linux and free software
    >
    > They couldn't use Linux by itself, since that's just a kernel and
    > would not run by itself in a PC.  Surely what you mean is the
    > GNU/Linux operating system.


    In this specific case, the usage of the term Linux was not incorrect,  
    because the addition of "and free software" recognized the presence of  
    free software from other sources than the operating system kernel.

The statement was not false, but it predictably tends to be
misunderstood.  This misunderstanding is quite common, so would you
please make the effort to help avoid spreading it?

    It is not at all  
    impossible that somebody might make an internet server platform using  
    Linux but not using GNU.

That is a big change from GNU/Linux, but it is possible.  And people
have already made ones that use GNU but not Linux, which is a much
smaller change.  Any component in the GNU/Linux system could be
replaced, but it is most unlikely that either Linux or GNU is absent
from the system they are using.

    I'm not saying that's what the Obama campaign used (rather unlikely in  
    fact), but I would just like to point out that there are other ways to  
    run Linux

There are other ways to run Linux just as there are other ways to run
Bash, other ways to run GNOME, other ways to run GCC, and other ways
to run GNU Chess.  But why attach special importance to the first of
these facts?

	      than with a GNU toolchain.

GNU is not a toolchain.  The tools you are thinking of are a small
part of the GNU system.