"[...] Linux is not free software". "[...] Linux [...] is on the ok side of the line".
Therefore: if there's only one popular kernel that GNU can use in its project, then it's OK to use it, even if it's not free software. Unpopular stuff like gNewSense have to be thought about, probably by a marketing team inside GNU/FSF, while popular non-free software is chosen. I'll put this clear, once again: every time the GNU Project or the Free Software Foundation talks about GNU/Linux in a positive way, they're promoting a non-free software kernel. There's no way to talk about Linux without promoting it, except the FSF forks its own copy of Linux and uses a name that has nothing to do with it. Period. And in case you thought about, a "Q: Isn't Linux non-free software? A: Yes, it is; everytime we talk about Linux, we are talking about a version that's not from Linus Torvalds" text somewhere in GNU/FSF's Web site does not do any good at all. Your personal ad* says that you value "truth [...] more than \"success\"", right? Well, then sacrifice Linux's popularity for the sake of the FSF's purpose. I find it funny that the FSF did remove Linux from the Free Software Directory but is afraid to disassociate from it. That _is_ hypocritical. Be a Real Men, Richard. Original quotes: "Torvalds' version of Linux is not free software" "Mentioning Linux is referring to something well-known that people have already heard of, which is on the ok side of the line." * http://www.stallman.org/extra/personal.html
