diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/gnu-linux-faq.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/gnu-linux-faq.html | 1691 |
1 files changed, 1691 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/gnu-linux-faq.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/gnu-linux-faq.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d338e82 --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/gnu-linux-faq.html @@ -0,0 +1,1691 @@ +<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --> +<!-- Parent-Version: 1.91 --> +<title>GNU/Linux FAQ +- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title> +<!--#include virtual="/gnu/po/gnu-linux-faq.translist" --> +<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --> +<h2>GNU/Linux FAQ by Richard Stallman</h2> + +<div class="announcement"> + <blockquote><p>To learn more about this issue, you can also read +our page on <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">Linux and the GNU Project</a>, our + page on <a href="/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html">Why GNU/Linux?</a> +and our page on <a href="/gnu/gnu-users-never-heard-of-gnu.html">GNU +Users Who Have Never Heard of GNU</a>.</p></blockquote> +</div> + +<p> +When people see that we use and recommend the name GNU/Linux for a +system that many others call just “Linux”, they ask many questions. +Here are common questions, and our answers.</p> + +<ul> + +<li><a href="#why">Why do you call the system we use GNU/Linux and not Linux?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#whycare">Why is the name important?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#what">What is the real relationship between GNU and Linux?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#howerror">How did it come about that most + people call the system “Linux”?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#always">Should we always say +“GNU/Linux” instead of “Linux”?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#linuxalone">Would Linux have achieved + the same success if there had been no GNU?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#divide">Wouldn't it be better for the + community if you did not divide people with this request?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#freespeech">Doesn't the GNU project + support an individual's free speech rights to call the system by + any name that individual chooses?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#everyoneknows">Since everyone + knows the role of GNU in developing the system, doesn't the + “GNU/” in the name go without saying?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#everyoneknows2">Since I know the role of + GNU in this system, why does it matter what name I use?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#windows">Isn't shortening + “GNU/Linux” to “Linux” just like + shortening “Microsoft Windows” to + “Windows”?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#tools">Isn't GNU a collection of programming + tools that were included in Linux?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#osvskernel">What is the difference between an operating + system and a kernel?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#house">The kernel of a system is like the foundation + of a house. How can a house be almost complete when it doesn't have a + foundation?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#brain">Isn't the kernel the brain of the + system?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#kernelmost">Isn't writing the kernel + most of the work in an operating system?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#nokernel">An operating system requires a kernel. + Since the GNU Project didn't develop a kernel, how can + the system be GNU?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#notinstallable">How can GNU be an + operating system, if I can't get something called “GNU” + and install it?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#afterkernel">We're calling the whole + system after the kernel, Linux. Isn't it normal to name an + operating system after a kernel?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#feel">Can another system have “the + feel of Linux”?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#long">The problem with + “GNU/Linux” is that it is too long. How about + recommending a shorter name?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#long1">How about calling the system + “GliNUx” (instead of “GNU/Linux”)?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#long2">The problem with + “GNU/Linux” is that it is too long. Why should + I go to the trouble of saying “GNU/”?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#long3">Unfortunately, + “GNU/Linux” is five syllables. People won't use such a + long term. Shouldn't you find a shorter one?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#long4">Stallman doesn't ask us to call him + “Richard Matthew Stallman” every the time. + So why ask us to say “GNU/Linux” every time?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#justgnu">Since Linux is a secondary + contribution, would it be false to the facts to call the system + simply “GNU”?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#trademarkfee">I would have to pay a + fee if I use “Linux” in the name of a product, and + that would also apply if I say “GNU/Linux”. Is it + wrong if I use “GNU” without “Linux”, to + save the fee?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#many">Many other projects contributed to the + system as it is today; it includes TeX, X11, Apache, Perl, and many + more programs. Don't your arguments imply we have to give them + credit too? (But that would lead to a name so long it is + absurd.)</a></li> + +<li><a href="#systemd">systemd plays an important role in the GNU/Linux + system as it is today; are we obligated to call it + GNU/systemd/Linux?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#others">Many other projects contributed to + the system as it is today, but they don't insist on calling it + XYZ/Linux. Why should we treat GNU specially?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#allsmall">GNU is a small fraction of the system + nowadays, so why should we mention it?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#manycompanies">Many companies + contributed to the system as it is today; doesn't that mean + we ought to call it GNU/Red Hat/Novell/Linux?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#whyslash">Why do you write + “GNU/Linux” instead of “GNU + Linux”?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#pronounce">How is the name “GNU/Linux” +pronounced?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#whynoslash">Why do you write + “GNU Emacs” rather than “GNU/Emacs”?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#whyorder">Why “GNU/Linux” +rather than “Linux/GNU”?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#distronames0">My distro's developers call it + “Foobar Linux”, but that doesn't say anything about + what the system consists of. Why shouldn't they call it whatever + they like?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#distronames">My distro is called + “Foobar Linux”; doesn't that show it's really + Linux?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#distronames1">My distro's official + name is “Foobar Linux”; isn't it wrong to call the + distro anything but “Foobar Linux”?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#companies">Wouldn't it be more + effective to ask companies such as Mandrake, Red Hat and IBM to + call their distributions “GNU/Linux” rather than + asking individuals?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#reserve">Wouldn't it be better to + reserve the name “GNU/Linux” for distributions that + are purely free software? After all, that is the ideal of + GNU.</a></li> + +<li><a href="#gnudist">Why not make a GNU distribution of + Linux (sic) and call that GNU/Linux?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#linuxgnu">Why not just say “Linux + is the GNU kernel” and release some existing version of + GNU/Linux under the name “GNU”?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#condemn">Did the GNU Project condemn and + oppose use of Linux in the early days?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#wait">Why did you wait so long before + asking people to use the name GNU/Linux?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#allgpled">Should the GNU/<i>name</i> convention + be applied to all programs that are GPL'ed?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#unix">Since much of GNU comes from Unix, + shouldn't GNU give credit to Unix by using “Unix” in + its name?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#bsd">Should we say “GNU/BSD” +too?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#othersys">If I install the GNU tools on + Windows, does that mean I am running a GNU/Windows system?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#justlinux">Can't Linux be used without +GNU?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#howmuch">How much of the GNU system +is needed for the system to be GNU/Linux?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#linuxsyswithoutgnu">Are there complete Linux systems [sic] without GNU?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#usegnulinuxandandroid">Is it correct to say “using + Linux” if it refers to using GNU/Linux and using Android?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#helplinus">Why not call the system + “Linux” anyway, and strengthen Linus Torvalds' role as + posterboy for our community?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#claimlinux">Isn't it wrong for us to label Linus + Torvalds' work as GNU?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#linusagreed">Does Linus Torvalds + agree that Linux is just the kernel?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#finishhurd">Why not finish + the GNU Hurd kernel, release the GNU system as a whole, + and forget the question of what to call GNU/Linux?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#lost">The battle is already + lost—society has made its decision and we can't change it, + so why even think about it?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#whatgood">Society has made its decision + and we can't change it, so what good does it do if I say + “GNU/Linux”?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#explain">Wouldn't it be better to call + the system “Linux” and teach people its real origin + with a ten-minute explanation?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#treatment">Some people laugh at you when + you ask them to call the system GNU/Linux. Why do you subject yourself + to this treatment?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#alienate">Some people condemn you when you + ask them to call the system GNU/Linux. Don't you lose by + alienating them?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#rename">Whatever you contributed, + is it legitimate to rename the operating system?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#force">Isn't it wrong to force people to call + the system “GNU/Linux”?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#whynotsue">Why not sue people who call + the whole system “Linux”?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#BSDlicense">Since you objected to the original + BSD license's advertising requirement to give credit to the University of + California, isn't it hypocritical to demand credit for the GNU project?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#require">Shouldn't you put something in + the GNU GPL to require people to call the system + “GNU”?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#deserve">Since you failed to put + something in the GNU GPL to require people to call the system + “GNU”, you deserve what happened; why are you + complaining now?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#contradict">Wouldn't you be better off + not contradicting what so many people believe?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#somanyright">Since many people call it + “Linux”, doesn't that make it right?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#knownname">Isn't it better to call the + system by the name most users already know?</a></li> + +<li><a href="#winning">Many people care about what's convenient or + who's winning, not about arguments of right or wrong. Couldn't you + get more of their support by a different road?</a></li> + +</ul> + +<dl> + +<dt id="why">Why do you call the system we use GNU/Linux and not + Linux? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#why">#why</a>)</span></dt> + +<dd>Most operating system distributions based on Linux as kernel are +basically modified versions of the GNU operating system. We began +developing GNU in 1984, years before Linus Torvalds started to write +his kernel. Our goal was to develop a complete free operating system. +Of course, we did not develop all the parts ourselves—but we led the way. +We developed most of the central components, forming the largest single +contribution to the whole system. The basic vision was ours too. +<p> +In fairness, we ought to get at least equal mention.</p> + +<p>See <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">Linux and the GNU System</a> +and <a href="/gnu/gnu-users-never-heard-of-gnu.html">GNU Users Who Have +Never Heard of GNU</a> for more explanation, and <a +href="/gnu/the-gnu-project.html">The GNU Project</a> for the +history.</p> </dd> + +<dt id="whycare">Why is the name + important? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#whycare">#whycare</a>)</span></dt> + +<dd>Although the developers of Linux, the kernel, are contributing to +the free software community, many of them do not care about freedom. +People who think the whole system is Linux tend to get confused and +assign to those developers a role in the history of our community +which they did not actually play. Then they give inordinate weight to +those developers' views. +<p> +Calling the system GNU/Linux recognizes the role that our idealism +played in building our community, and +<a href="/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html">helps the public recognize the +practical importance of these ideals</a>.</p> +</dd> + +<dt id="what">What is the real relationship between GNU and Linux? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#what">#what</a>)</span></dt> + +<dd>The GNU operating system and the Linux kernel are separate +software projects that do complementary jobs. Typically they are +packaged in a <a href="/distros/distros.html">GNU/Linux distribution</a>, and used +together.</dd> + +<dt id="howerror">How did it come about that most + people call the system “Linux”? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#howerror">#howerror</a>)</span></dt> + +<dd>Calling the system “Linux” is a confusion that has spread faster +than the corrective information. +<p> +The people who combined Linux with the GNU system were not aware that +that's what their activity amounted to. They focused their attention +on the piece that was Linux and did not realize that more of the +combination was GNU. They started calling it “Linux” even though that +name did not fit what they had. It took a few years for us to realize +what a problem this was and ask people to correct the practice. By +that time, the confusion had a big head start.</p> +<p> +Most of the people who call the system “Linux” have never heard why +that's not the right thing. They saw others using that name and +assume it must be right. The name “Linux” also spreads a false +picture of the system's origin, because people tend to suppose that +the system's history was such as to fit that name. For +instance, they often believe its development was started by Linus +Torvalds in 1991. This false picture tends to reinforce the idea +that the system should be called “Linux”.</p> +<p> +Many of the questions in this file represent people's attempts to +justify the name they are accustomed to using.</p> +</dd> + +<dt id="always">Should we always say + “GNU/Linux” instead of “Linux”? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#always">#always</a>)</span></dt> +<dd> +Not always—only when you're talking about the whole system. When +you're referring specifically to the kernel, you should call it +“Linux”, the name its developer chose. +<p> +When people call the whole system “Linux”, as a consequence +they call the whole system by the same name as the kernel. +This causes many kinds of confusion, because only experts can tell +whether a statement is about the kernel or the whole system. +By calling the whole system “GNU/Linux”, and calling the kernel +“Linux”, you avoid the ambiguity.</p> +</dd> + +<dt id="linuxalone">Would Linux have + achieved the same success if there had been no + GNU? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#linuxalone">#linuxalone</a>)</span></dt> + +<dd> +In that alternative world, there would be nothing today like the +GNU/Linux system, and probably no free operating system at all. No +one attempted to develop a free operating system in the 1980s except +the GNU Project and (later) Berkeley CSRG, which had been specifically +asked by the GNU Project to start freeing its code. +<p> +Linus Torvalds was partly influenced by a speech about GNU in Finland +in 1990. It's possible that even without this influence he might have +written a Unix-like kernel, but it probably would not have been free +software. Linux became free in 1992 when Linus rereleased it under +the GNU GPL. (See the release notes for version 0.12.)</p> +<p> +Even if Torvalds had released Linux under some other free software +license, a free kernel alone would not have made much difference to +the world. The significance of Linux came from fitting into a larger +framework, a complete free operating system: GNU/Linux.</p> +</dd> + +<dt id="divide">Wouldn't it be better for the + community if you did not divide people with this request? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#divide">#divide</a>)</span></dt> + +<dd> +When we ask people to say “GNU/Linux”, we are not dividing people. We +are asking them to give the GNU Project credit for the GNU operating +system. This does not criticize anyone or push anyone away. +<p> +However, there are people who do not like our saying this. Sometimes +those people push us away in response. On occasion they are so rude +that one wonders if they are intentionally trying to intimidate us +into silence. It doesn't silence us, but it does tend to divide the +community, so we hope you can convince them to stop.</p> +<p> +However, this is only a secondary cause of division in our community. +The largest division in the community is between people who appreciate +free software as a social and ethical issue and consider proprietary +software a social problem (supporters of the free software movement), +and those who cite only practical benefits and present free software +only as an efficient development model (the open source movement).</p> +<p> +This disagreement is not just a matter of names—it is a matter +of differing basic values. It is essential for the community to see +and think about this disagreement. The names “free +software” and “open source” are the banners of the +two positions. +See <a href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html">Why Open +Source misses the point of Free Software</a>.</p> +<p> +The disagreement over values partially aligns with the amount of +attention people pay to the GNU Project's role in our community. +People who value freedom are more likely to call the system +“GNU/Linux”, and people who learn that the system is “GNU/Linux” are +more likely to pay attention to our philosophical arguments for +freedom and community (which is why the choice of name for the system +makes a real difference for society). However, the disagreement would +probably exist even if everyone knew the system's real origin and its +proper name, because the issue is a real one. It can only go away if +we who value freedom either persuade everyone (which won't be easy) or +are defeated entirely (let's hope not).</p> +</dd> + +<dt id="freespeech">Doesn't the GNU project + support an individual's free speech rights to call the system by + any name that individual chooses? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#freespeech">#freespeech</a>)</span></dt> +<dd> +Yes, indeed, we believe you have a free speech right to call the +operating system by any name you wish. We ask that people call it +GNU/Linux as a matter of doing justice to the GNU project, to promote +the values of freedom that GNU stands for, and to inform others that +those values of freedom brought the system into existence. +</dd> + +<dt id="everyoneknows">Since everyone knows the role + of GNU in developing the system, doesn't the “GNU/” in the + name go without saying? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#everyoneknows">#everyoneknows</a>)</span></dt> + +<dd>Experience shows that the system's users, and the computer-using +public in general, often know nothing about the GNU system. Most +articles about the system do not mention the name “GNU”, or the ideals +that GNU stands for. <a +href="/gnu/gnu-users-never-heard-of-gnu.html">GNU Users Who Have Never +Heard of GNU</a> explains further. +<p> +The people who say this are probably geeks thinking of the geeks they +know. Geeks often do know about GNU, but many have a completely wrong +idea of what GNU is. For instance, many think it is a collection +of <a href="#tools">“tools”</a>, or a project to develop tools.</p> +<p> +The wording of this question, which is typical, illustrates another +common misconception. To speak of “GNU's role” in developing +something assumes that GNU is a group of people. GNU is an operating +system. It would make sense to talk about the GNU Project's role in +this or some other activity, but not that of GNU.</p> +</dd> + +<dt id="everyoneknows2">Since I know the role of GNU in this system, + why does it matter what name I use? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#everyoneknows2">#everyoneknows2</a>)</span></dt> + +<dd> +If your words don't reflect your knowledge, you don't teach others. +Most people who have heard of the GNU/Linux system think it is +“Linux”, that it was started by Linus Torvalds, and that +it was intended to be “open source”. If you don't tell +them, who will? +</dd> + +<dt id="windows">Isn't shortening “GNU/Linux” + to “Linux” just like shortening “Microsoft Windows” to “Windows”? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#windows">#windows</a>)</span></dt> + +<dd> +It's useful to shorten a frequently-used name, but not if the +abbreviation is misleading. +<p> +Almost everyone in developed countries really does know that the +“Windows” system is made by Microsoft, so shortening “Microsoft +Windows” to “Windows” does not mislead anyone as to that system's +nature and origin. Shortening “GNU/Linux” to “Linux” does give the +wrong idea of where the system comes from.</p> +<p> +The question is itself misleading because GNU and Microsoft are +not the same kind of thing. Microsoft is a company; +GNU is an operating system.</p> +</dd> + +<dt id="tools">Isn't GNU a collection of + programming tools that were included in Linux? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#tools">#tools</a>)</span></dt> + +<dd> +People who think that Linux is an entire operating system, if they +hear about GNU at all, often get a wrong idea of what GNU is. They +may think that GNU is the name of a collection of programs—often they +say “programming tools”, since some of our programming tools became +popular on their own. The idea that “GNU” is the name of an operating +system is hard to fit into a conceptual framework in which that +operating system is labeled “Linux”. +<p> +The GNU Project was named after the GNU operating system—it's the project +to develop the GNU system. (See <a +href="/gnu/initial-announcement.html">the 1983 initial announcement</a>.)</p> +<p> +We developed programs such as GCC, GNU Emacs, GAS, GLIBC, BASH, etc., +because we needed them for the GNU operating system. GCC, the GNU +Compiler Collection is the compiler that we wrote for the GNU +operating system. We, the many people working on the GNU Project, +developed Ghostscript, GNUCash, GNU Chess and GNOME for the GNU system +too.</p> +</dd> + +<dt id="osvskernel">What is the difference +between an operating system and a kernel? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#osvskernel">#osvskernel</a>)</span></dt> + +<dd> +An operating system, as we use the term, means a collection of +programs that are sufficient to use the computer to do a wide variety +of jobs. A general purpose operating system, to be complete, ought to +handle all the jobs that many users may want to do. +<p> +The kernel is one of the programs in an operating system—the program +that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that are +running. The kernel also takes care of starting and stopping other +programs.</p> +<p> +To confuse matters, some people use the term “operating system” to +mean “kernel”. Both uses of the term go back many years. The +use of “operating system” to mean “kernel” is found in a number of +textbooks on system design, going back to the 80s. At the same time, +in the 80s, the “Unix operating system” was understood to include all +the system programs, and Berkeley's version of Unix included even +games. Since we intended GNU to be a Unix-like operating system, we +use the term “operating system” in the same way.</p> +<p> +Most of the time when people speak of the “Linux operating system” +they are using “operating system” in the same sense we use: they mean +the whole collection of programs. If that's what you are referring +to, please call it “GNU/Linux”. If you mean just the kernel, then +“Linux” is the right name for it, but please say “kernel” also to +avoid ambiguity about which body of software you mean.</p> +<p> +If you prefer to use some other term such as “system distribution” for +the entire collection of programs, instead of “operating system”, +that's fine. Then you would talk about GNU/Linux system +distributions.</p> +</dd> + +<dt id="house">The kernel of a system is like the foundation of a + house. How can a house be almost complete when it doesn't have a + foundation? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#house">#house</a>)</span></dt> + +<dd> +A kernel is not much like the foundation of a house because building +an operating system is not much like building a house. + +<p>A house is built from lots of little general parts that are cut and +put together in situ. They have to be put together from the bottom +up. Thus, when the foundation has not been built, no substantial part +has been built; all you have is a hole in the ground.</p> + +<p> +By contrast, an operating system consists of complex +components that can be developed in any order. When you have +developed most of the components, most of the work is done. This is +much more like the International Space Station than like a house. If +most of the Space Station modules were in orbit but awaiting one other +essential module, that would be like the GNU system in 1992. +</p> +</dd> + +<dt id="brain">Isn't the kernel the brain of the system? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#brain">#brain</a>)</span></dt> + +<dd> +A computer system is not much like a human body, +and no part of it plays a role comparable to that of +the brain in a human. +</dd> + +<dt id="kernelmost">Isn't writing the kernel most of the work in an +operating system? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#kernelmost">#kernelmost</a>)</span></dt> + +<dd> +No, many components take a lot of work. +</dd> + +<dt id="nokernel">An operating system requires a kernel. + Since the GNU Project didn't develop a kernel, how can + the system be GNU?<span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#nokernel">#nokernel</a>)</span></dt> + +<dd> +The people who argue that way for calling the system +“Linux” are using a double standard. An operating system +requires compilers, editors, window systems, libraries, and much more +— hundreds of programs, even to match what BSD systems included +in 1983. Since Torvalds didn't develop any of those, how can the +system be “Linux”? + +<p> +That standard is too strict, not the right way to judge the +contributions of any contributor.</p> + +<p> +Linus Torvalds made an important contribution to the operating system +we use; the GNU Project started earlier and contributed much more. +The name “GNU/Linux” gives credit to each.</p> +</dd> + +<dt id="notinstallable">How can GNU be an + operating system, if I can't get something called “GNU” + and install it? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#notinstallable">#notinstallable</a>)</span></dt> + +<dd> +Many <a href="/distros/distros.html"> packaged and installable +versions of GNU</a> are available. None of them is called simply +“GNU”, but GNU is what they basically are. + +<p> +We expected to release the GNU system packaged for installation, but +this plan was overtaken by events: in 1992 others were already +packaging GNU variants containing Linux. Starting in 1993 we +sponsored an effort to make a better and freer GNU/Linux distribution, +called <a href="/distros/common-distros.html#Debian">Debian +GNU/Linux</a>. The founder of Debian had already chosen that name. +We did not ask him to call it just “GNU” because that was +to be the name of a system version with the GNU Hurd kernel—which +wasn't ready yet.</p> + +<p> +The GNU Hurd kernel never became sufficiently ready; we only recommend +it to those interested in working on it. So we never packaged GNU +with the GNU Hurd kernel. However, Debian packaged this combination +as Debian GNU/Hurd.</p> + +<p> +We are now developing an advanced Scheme-based package manager called +Guix and a complete system distribution based on it called the +<a href="/software/guix">Guix System Distribution</a> or GuixSD. +This includes repackaging a substantial part of the GNU system.</p> + +<p> +We never took the last step of packaging GNU under the name +“GNU”, but that doesn't alter what kind of thing GNU is. +GNU is an operating system.</p> +</dd> + +<dt id="afterkernel">We're calling the + whole system after the kernel, Linux. Isn't it normal to name an + operating system after a kernel? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#afterkernel">#afterkernel</a>)</span></dt> + +<dd> +That practice seems to be very rare—we can't find any examples other +than the misuse of the name “Linux”. Normally an operating system is +developed as a single unified project, and the developers choose a +name for the system as a whole. The kernel usually does not have a +name of its own—instead, people say “the kernel of such-and-such” or +“the such-and-such kernel”. +<p> +Because those two constructions are used synonymously, the expression +“the Linux kernel” can easily be misunderstood as meaning “the kernel +of Linux” and implying that Linux must be more than a kernel. You can +avoid the possibility of this misunderstanding by saying or writing +“the kernel, Linux” or “Linux, the kernel.”</p> +</dd> + +<dt id="feel">Can another system have “the + feel of Linux”? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#feel">#feel</a>)</span></dt> + +<dd> +There is no such thing as the “feel of Linux” because +Linux has no user interfaces. Like any modern kernel, Linux is a base +for running programs; user interfaces belong elsewhere in the system. +Human interaction with GNU/Linux always goes through other programs, +and the “feel” comes from them. +</dd> + +<dt id="long">The problem with “GNU/Linux” is that it is too long. + How about recommending a shorter name? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#long">#long</a>)</span></dt> + +<dd> +For a while we tried the name “LiGNUx”, which combines the words “GNU” +and “Linux”. The reaction was very bad. People accept “GNU/Linux” +much better. +<p> +The shortest legitimate name for this system is “GNU”, but +we call it “GNU/Linux” <a href="#justgnu"> for the reasons +given below</a>.</p> +</dd> + +<dt id="long1">How about calling the system + “GliNUx” (instead of “GNU/Linux”)? + <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#long1">#long1</a>)</span></dt> + +<dd> +<p>The name “GNU” does not visibly appear in +“Glinux,” so most people would not notice it is there. +Even if it is capitalized as “GliNUx,” most people would +not realize that it contains a reference to GNU.</p> + +<p>It would be comparable to writing “GNU/Linux,” but +putting “GNU/” in print so small that most people could +not read it.</p> +</dd> + +<dt id="long2">The problem with “GNU/Linux” is that it is too long. + Why should I go to the trouble of saying “GNU/”? + <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#long2">#long2</a>)</span></dt> + +<dd> +<p>It only takes a second to say or type “GNU/”. If you +appreciate the system that we developed, can't you take one second +to recognize our work?</p> +</dd> + +<dt id="long3">Unfortunately, “GNU/Linux” is five + syllables. People won't use such a long term. Shouldn't you find a + shorter one? + <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#long3">#long3</a>)</span></dt> +<dd><p>Actually, “GNU/Linux” is only four syllables. + “Unfortunately” is five syllables, yet people show no + sign of reluctance to use that word.</p></dd> + +<dt id="long4">Stallman doesn't ask us to call him + “Richard Matthew Stallman” every the time. + So why ask us to say “GNU/Linux” every time? + <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#long4">#long4</a>)</span></dt> +<dd> +<p>Omitting “Matthew” does not misrepresent anything +important about Stallman's nature, origin, ideas or purpose. Omitting +“GNU” does misrepresent those things about the GNU/Linux +system.</p> + +<p>This is an example of a frequent way of hiding a fallacy: to bury +it inside a misleading analogy. A better analogy would be, “Why +shouldn't we call Stallman ‘Torvalds’?” +</p></dd> + +<dt id="justgnu">Since Linux is a secondary + contribution, would it be false to the facts to call the system simply + “GNU”? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#justgnu">#justgnu</a>)</span></dt> + +<dd> +It would not be false to the facts, but it is not the best thing to +do. Here are the reasons we call that system version “GNU/Linux” +rather than just “GNU”: + +<ul> +<li> +It's not exactly GNU—it has a different kernel (that is, Linux). +Distinguishing GNU/Linux from GNU is useful.</li> +<li> +It would be ungentlemanly to ask people to <em>stop</em> giving any +credit to Linus Torvalds. He did write an important component of the +system. We want to get credit for launching and sustaining the +system's development, but this doesn't mean we should treat Linus the +same way those who call the system “Linux” treat us. We strongly +disagree with his political views, but we deal with that disagreement +honorably and openly, rather than by trying to cut him out of the +credit for his contribution to the system.</li> +<li> +Since many people know of the system as “Linux”, if we say “GNU” they +may simply not recognize we're talking about the same system. If we +say “GNU/Linux”, they can make a connection to what they have heard +about.</li> +</ul><p></p> +</dd> + +<dt id="trademarkfee">I would have + to pay a fee if I use “Linux” in the name of a product, and that + would also apply if I say “GNU/Linux”. Is it wrong if I use “GNU” + without “Linux”, to save the fee? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#trademarkfee">#trademarkfee</a>)</span></dt> +<dd> +There's nothing wrong in calling the system “GNU”; basically, that's +what it is. It is nice to give Linus Torvalds a share of the credit +as well, but you have no obligation to pay for the privilege of doing +so. +<p> +So if you want to refer to the system simply as “GNU”, to avoid paying +the fee for calling it “Linux”, we won't criticize you.</p> +</dd> + +<dt id="many">Many other projects contributed to + the system as it is today; it includes TeX, X11, Apache, Perl, and many + more programs. Don't your arguments imply we have to give them credit + too? (But that would lead to a name so long it is + absurd.) <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#many">#many</a>)</span></dt> + +<dd> +What we say is that you ought to give the system's principal developer +a share of the credit. The principal developer is the GNU Project, +and the system is basically GNU. +<p> +If you feel even more strongly about giving credit where it is due, +you might feel that some secondary contributors also deserve credit in +the system's name. If so, far be it from us to argue against it. If +you feel that X11 deserves credit in the system's name, and you want +to call the system GNU/X11/Linux, please do. If you feel that Perl +simply cries out for mention, and you want to write GNU/Linux/Perl, go +ahead.</p> +<p> +Since a long name such as GNU/X11/Apache/Linux/TeX/Perl/Python/FreeCiv +becomes absurd, at some point you will have to set a threshold and +omit the names of the many other secondary contributions. There is no +one obvious right place to set the threshold, so wherever you set it, +we won't argue against it.</p> +<p> +Different threshold levels would lead to different choices of name for +the system. But one name that cannot result from concerns of fairness +and giving credit, not for any possible threshold level, is “Linux”. +It can't be fair to give all the credit to one secondary contribution +(Linux) while omitting the principal contribution (GNU).</p> +</dd> + +<dt id="systemd">systemd plays an important role in the GNU/Linux + system as it is today; are we obligated to call it + GNU/systemd/Linux? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#others">#others</a>)</span></dt> + +<dd> +systemd is a fairly important component, but not as important as the +kernel (Linux), nor as important as the basis of the system as a whole +(GNU). However, if you want to emphasize the presence of systemd +by calling the system “GNU/systemd/Linux”, there is nothing +wrong with doing so. +</dd> + +<dt id="others">Many other projects contributed to + the system as it is today, but they don't insist on calling it + XYZ/Linux. Why should we treat GNU specially? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#others">#others</a>)</span></dt> + +<dd> +Thousands of projects have developed programs commonly included in +today's GNU/Linux systems. They all deserve credit for their +contributions, but they aren't the principal developers of the system +as a whole, so they don't ask to be credited as such. +<p> +GNU is different because it is more than just a contributed program, +more than just a collection of contributed programs. GNU is the +framework on which the system was made.</p> +</dd> + +<dt id="allsmall">GNU is a small fraction of the system nowadays, + so why should we mention it? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#allsmall">#allsmall</a>)</span></dt> +<dd> +In 2008, we found that GNU packages made up 15% of the +“main” repository of the gNewSense GNU/Linux distribution. +Linux made up 1.5%. So the same argument would apply even more +strongly to calling it “Linux”. + +<p> +GNU is a small fraction of the system nowadays, and Linux is an +even smaller fraction. But they are the system's core; the system +was made by combining them. Thus, the name “GNU/Linux” +remains appropriate. +</p> +</dd> + +<dt id="manycompanies">Many companies + contributed to the system as it is today; doesn't that mean + we ought to call it GNU/Red Hat/Novell/Linux? <span + class="anchor-reference-id">(<a + href="#manycompanies">#manycompanies</a>)</span></dt> + +<dd> +<p> +GNU is not comparable to Red Hat or Novell; it is not a company, or an +organization, or even an activity. GNU is an operating system. (When +we speak of the GNU Project, that refers to the project to develop the +GNU system.) The GNU/Linux system is based on GNU, and that's why GNU +ought to appear in its name. +</p> +<p> +Much of those companies' contribution to the GNU/Linux system lies in +the code they have contributed to various GNU packages including GCC +and GNOME. Saying GNU/Linux gives credit to those companies along +with all the rest of the GNU developers. +</p> +</dd> + +<dt id="whyslash">Why do you write “GNU/Linux” +instead of “GNU Linux”? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#whyslash">#whyslash</a>)</span></dt> + +<dd> +Following the rules of English, in the construction “GNU Linux” the +word “GNU” modifies “Linux”. This can mean either “GNU's version of +Linux” or “Linux, which is a GNU package.” Neither of those meanings +fits the situation at hand. +<p> +Linux is not a GNU package; that is, it wasn't developed under the GNU +Project's aegis or contributed specifically to the GNU Project. Linus +Torvalds wrote Linux independently, as his own project. So the +“Linux, which is a GNU package” meaning is not right.</p> +<p> +We're not talking about a distinct GNU version of Linux, the kernel. +The free GNU/Linux distros do have +a <a href="http://directory.fsf.org/project/linux">separate version of +Linux</a>, since the “standard” version contains non-free +firmware “blobs”. If this were part of the GNU Project, +it could be considered “GNU Linux”; but we would not want +to call it that, because it would be too confusing.</p> +<p> +We're talking about a version of GNU, the operating system, +distinguished by having Linux as the kernel. A slash fits the +situation because it means “combination.” (Think of +“Input/Output”.) This system is the combination of GNU +and Linux; hence, “GNU/Linux”.</p> +<p> +There are other ways to express “combination”. If you +think that a plus-sign is clearer, please use that. In French, a +hyphen is clear: “GNU-Linux”. In Spanish, we sometimes +say “GNU con Linux”.</p> +</dd> + +<dt id="pronounce">How is the name “GNU/Linux” +pronounced? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#pronounce">#pronounce</a>)</span></dt> +<dd> +<p> +Please pronounce it as “GNU slash Linux.” If you don't pronounce +the slash, people will think you are saying “GNU Linux,” +which is <a href="#whyslash">not a suitable name for the combination</a>. +</p> +</dd> + +<dt id="whynoslash">Why do you write “GNU Emacs” +rather than “GNU/Emacs”? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#whynoslash">#whynoslash</a>)</span></dt> + +<dd> +<p> +Following the rules of English, in the construction “GNU +Emacs” the word “GNU” modifies “Emacs”. +That is the right way to describe a program called Emacs which is a +GNU package.</p> +<p> +“GNU/Emacs” would mean the combination of GNU, the +operating system, and the program Emacs. That doesn't fit this +program, so “GNU/Emacs” is the wrong way to refer to it.</p> +</dd> + +<dt id="whyorder">Why “GNU/Linux” rather +than “Linux/GNU”? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#whyorder">#whyorder</a>)</span></dt> + +<dd> +<p> +It is right and proper to mention the principal contribution first. +The GNU contribution to the system is not only bigger than Linux and +prior to Linux, we actually started the whole activity.</p> +<p> +In addition, “GNU/Linux” fits the fact that Linux is the +lowest level of the system and GNU fills technically higher levels.</p> +<p> +However, if you prefer to call the system “Linux/GNU”, that is a lot +better than what people usually do, which is to omit GNU entirely and +make it seem that the whole system is Linux.</p> +</dd> + +<dt id="distronames0">My distro's developers call it + “Foobar Linux”, but that doesn't say anything about + what the system consists of. Why shouldn't they call it whatever + they like? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#distronames0">#distronames0</a>)</span></dt> +<dd> +Calling a system “Foobar Linux” implies that it's a flavor +of “Linux,” and people <a href="#distronames">understand +it that way</a>. + +<p> +If they called a GNU/Linux distro “Foobar BSD,” you would +call that a mistake. “This system is not BSD,” you +would tell them. Well, it's not Linux either.</p> +</dd> + +<dt id="distronames">My distro is called + “Foobar Linux”; doesn't that show it's really Linux? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#distronames">#distronames</a>)</span></dt> + +<dd> +<p>It means that the people who make the “Foobar Linux” distro are +repeating the common mistake. We appreciate that distributions like Debian, Dragora, Musix, Trisquel, and Venenux have adopted +GNU/Linux as part of their official name, and we hope that if you are involved with a different distribution, you will +encourage it to do the same.</p> +</dd> + +<dt id="distronames1">My distro's official name is “Foobar + Linux”; isn't it wrong to call the distro + anything but “Foobar Linux”? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#distronames1">#distronames1</a>)</span></dt> + +<dd><p>When they spread misinformation by changing “GNU” +to “Linux”, and call their version of it “Foobar +Linux”, it's proper for you to correct the misinformation by +calling it “Foobar GNU/Linux”.</p></dd> + +<dt id="companies">Wouldn't it be more + effective to ask companies such as Mandrake, Red Hat and IBM to + call their distributions “GNU/Linux” rather than asking + individuals? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#companies">#companies</a>)</span></dt> + +<dd> +It isn't a choice of one or the other—we ask companies and +organizations and individuals to help spread the word about this. In +fact, we have asked all three of those companies. Mandrake said it +would use the term “GNU/Linux” some of the time, but IBM +and Red Hat were unwilling to help. One executive said, “This +is a pure commercial decision; we expect to make more money calling it +‘Linux’.” In other words, that company did not care +what was right. +<p> +We can't make them do this right, but we're not the sort to give up +just because the road isn't easy. You may not have as much influence +at your disposal as IBM or Red Hat, but you can still help. Together +we can change the situation to the point where companies will make +more profit calling it “GNU/Linux”.</p> +</dd> + +<dt id="reserve">Wouldn't it be better to + reserve the name “GNU/Linux” for distributions that are purely + free software? After all, that is the ideal of GNU. <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#reserve">#reserve</a>)</span></dt> + +<dd> +The widespread practice of adding non-free software to the GNU/Linux +system is a major problem for our community. It teaches the users +that non-free software is ok, and that using it is part of the spirit +of “Linux”. Many “Linux” User Groups make it part of their mission to +help users use non-free add-ons, and may even invite salesmen to come +and make sales pitches for them. They adopt goals such as “helping +the users” of GNU/Linux (including helping them use non-free +applications and drivers), or making the system more popular even at +the cost of freedom. +<p> +The question is how to try to change this.</p> +<p> +Given that most of the community which uses GNU with Linux already +does not realize that's what it is, for us to disown these adulterated +versions, saying they are not really GNU, would not teach the users to +value freedom more. They would not get the intended message. They +would only respond they never thought these systems were GNU in the +first place.</p> +<p> +The way to lead these users to see a connection with freedom is +exactly the opposite: to inform them that all these system +versions <em>are</em> versions of GNU, that they all are based on a +system that exists specifically for the sake of the users' freedom. +With this understanding, they can start to recognize the distributions +that include non-free software as perverted, adulterated versions of +GNU, instead of thinking they are proper and appropriate “versions of +Linux”.</p> +<p> +It is very useful to start GNU/Linux User Groups, which call the +system GNU/Linux and adopt the ideals of the GNU Project as a basis +for their activities. If the Linux User Group in your area has the +problems described above, we suggest you either campaign within the +group to change its orientation (and name) or start a new group. The +people who focus on the more superficial goals have a right to their +views, but don't let them drag you along!</p> +</dd> + +<dt id="gnudist">Why not make a GNU + distribution of Linux (sic) and call that GNU/Linux? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#gnudist">#gnudist</a>)</span></dt> + +<dd> +All the “Linux” distributions are actually versions of the GNU system +with Linux as the kernel. The purpose of the term “GNU/Linux” is to +communicate this point. To develop one new distribution and call that +alone “GNU/Linux” would obscure the point we want to make. +<p> +As for developing a distribution of GNU/Linux, we already did this +once, when we funded the early development of Debian GNU/Linux. To do +it again now does not seem useful; it would be a lot of work, and +unless the new distribution had substantial practical advantages over +other distributions, it would serve no purpose.</p> +<p> +Instead we help the developers of 100% free GNU/Linux distributions, +such as gNewSense and Ututo.</p> +</dd> + +<dt id="linuxgnu">Why not just say “Linux is + the GNU kernel” and release some existing version of GNU/Linux under + the name “GNU”? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#linuxgnu">#linuxgnu</a>)</span></dt> + +<dd> +It might have been a good idea to adopt Linux as the GNU kernel back +in 1992. If we had realized, then, how long it would take to get the +GNU Hurd to work, we might have done that. (Alas, that is hindsight.) +<p> +If we were to take an existing version of GNU/Linux and relabel it as +“GNU”, that would be somewhat like making a version of the GNU system +and labeling it “Linux”. That wasn't right, and we don't +want to act like that.</p> +</dd> + +<dt id="condemn">Did the GNU Project condemn + and oppose use of Linux in the early days? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#condemn">#condemn</a>)</span></dt> + +<dd> +We did not adopt Linux as our kernel, but we didn't condemn or oppose +it. In 1993 we started discussing the arrangements to sponsor the +development of Debian GNU/Linux. We also sought to cooperate with the +people who were changing some GNU packages for use with Linux. We +wanted to include their changes in the standard releases so that these +GNU packages would work out-of-the-box in combination with Linux. But +the changes were often ad-hoc and nonportable; they needed to be cleaned +up for installation. +<p> +The people who had made the changes showed little interest in +cooperating with us. One of them actually told us that he didn't care +about working with the GNU Project because he was a “Linux user”. +That came as a shock, because the people who ported GNU packages to +other systems had generally wanted to work with us to get their +changes installed. Yet these people, developing a system that was +primarily based on GNU, were the first (and still practically the +only) group that was unwilling to work with us.</p> +<p> +It was this experience that first showed us that people were calling a +version of the GNU system “Linux”, and that this confusion was +obstructing our work. Asking you to call the system “GNU/Linux” is +our response to that problem, and to the other problems caused by the +“Linux” misnomer.</p> +</dd> + +<dt id="wait">Why did you wait so + long before asking people to use the name GNU/Linux? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#wait">#wait</a>)</span></dt> + +<dd> +<p>Actually we didn't. We began talking privately with developers and +distributors about this in 1994, and made a more public campaign in +1996. We will continue for as long as it's necessary.</p> +</dd> + +<dt id="allgpled">Should the GNU/<i>name</i> + convention be applied to all programs that are GPL'ed? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#allgpled">#allgpled</a>)</span></dt> + +<dd> +We never refer to individual programs as “GNU/<i>name</i>”. When a program +is a GNU package, we may call it “GNU <i>name</i>”. +<p> +GNU, the operating system, is made up of many different programs. +Some of the programs in GNU were written as part of the GNU Project or +specifically contributed to it; these are the GNU packages, and we +often use “GNU” in their names.</p> +<p> +It's up to the developers of a program to decide if they want to contribute +it and make it a GNU package. If you have developed a program and you +would like it to be a GNU package, please write to +<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>, so we can evaluate it +and decide whether we want it.</p> +<p> +It wouldn't be fair to put the name GNU on every individual program +that is released under the GPL. If you write a program and release it +under the GPL, that doesn't mean the GNU Project wrote it or that you +wrote it for us. For instance, the kernel, Linux, is released under +the GNU GPL, but Linus did not write it as part of the GNU Project—he +did the work independently. If something is not a GNU package, the +GNU Project can't take credit for it, and putting “GNU” in its name +would be improper.</p> +<p> +In contrast, we do deserve the overall credit for the GNU operating +system as a whole, even though not for each and every program in it. +The system exists as a system because of our determination and +persistence, starting in 1984, many years before Linux was begun.</p> +<p> +The operating system in which Linux became popular was basically the +same as the GNU operating system. It was not entirely the same, +because it had a different kernel, but it was mostly the same system. +It was a variant of GNU. It was the GNU/Linux system.</p> +<p> +Linux continues to be used primarily in derivatives of that system—in +today's versions of the GNU/Linux system. What gives these systems +their identity is GNU and Linux at the center of them, not particularly +Linux alone.</p> +</dd> + +<dt id="unix">Since much of GNU comes +from Unix, shouldn't GNU give credit +to Unix by using “Unix” in its name? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#unix">#unix</a>)</span></dt> + +<dd> +Actually, none of GNU comes from Unix. Unix was proprietary software +(and still is), so using any of its code in GNU would have been +illegal. This is not a coincidence; this is why we developed GNU: +since you could not have freedom in using Unix, or any of the other +operating systems of the day, we needed a free system to replace it. +We could not copy programs, or even parts of them, from Unix; +everything had to be written afresh. +<p> +No code in GNU comes from Unix, but GNU is a Unix-compatible system; +therefore, many of the ideas and specifications of GNU do come from +Unix. The name “GNU”, which stands for “GNU's Not +Unix”, is a humorous way of giving credit to Unix for this, +following a hacker tradition of recursive acronyms that started in the +70s.</p> +<p> +The first such recursive acronym was TINT, “TINT Is Not +TECO”. The author of TINT wrote another implementation of TECO +(there were already many of them, for various systems), but instead of +calling it by a dull name like “<em>somethingorother</em> TECO”, he +thought of a clever amusing name. (That's what hacking +means: <a href="http://stallman.org/articles/on-hacking.html">playful +cleverness</a>.)</p> +<p> +Other hackers enjoyed that name so much that we imitated the approach. +It became a tradition that, when you were writing from scratch a +program that was similar to some existing program (let's imagine its +name was “Klever”), you could give it a recursive acronym name, such +as “MINK” for “MINK Is Not Klever.” In this same spirit we called our +replacement for Unix “GNU's Not Unix”.</p> +<p> +Historically, AT&T which developed Unix did not want anyone to +give it credit by using “Unix” in the name of a similar +system, not even in a system 99% copied from Unix. AT&T actually +threatened to sue anyone giving AT&T credit in that way. This is +why each of the various modified versions of Unix (all proprietary, +like Unix) had a completely different name that didn't include +“Unix”.</p> +</dd> + +<dt id="bsd">Should we say “GNU/BSD” +too? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#bsd">#bsd</a>)</span></dt> + +<dd> +We don't call the BSD systems (FreeBSD, etc.) “GNU/BSD” systems, +because that term does not fit the history of the BSD systems. +<p> +The BSD system was developed by UC Berkeley as non-free software in +the 80s, and became free in the early 90s. A free operating system +that exists today is almost certainly either a variant of the GNU +system, or a kind of BSD system.</p> +<p> +People sometimes ask whether BSD too is a variant of GNU, as GNU/Linux +is. It is not. The BSD developers were inspired to make their code +free software by the example of the GNU Project, and explicit appeals +from GNU activists helped convince them to start, but the code had +little overlap with GNU.</p> +<p> +BSD systems today use some GNU packages, just as the GNU system and +its variants use some BSD programs; however, taken as wholes, they are +two different systems that evolved separately. The BSD developers did +not write a kernel and add it to the GNU system, so a name like +GNU/BSD would not fit the situation.</p> +<p> +The connection between GNU/Linux and GNU is much closer, and that's +why the name “GNU/Linux” is appropriate for it.</p> +<p> +There is a version of GNU which uses the kernel from NetBSD. Its +developers call it “Debian GNU/NetBSD”, but “GNU/kernelofNetBSD” +would be more accurate, since NetBSD is an entire system, not just +the kernel. This is not a BSD system, since most of the system +is the same as the GNU/Linux system.</p> +</dd> + +<dt id="othersys">If I install the GNU tools +on Windows, does that mean I am running a GNU/Windows system? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#othersys">#othersys</a>)</span></dt> + +<dd> +Not in the same sense that we mean by “GNU/Linux”. The tools of GNU +are just a part of the GNU software, which is just a part of the GNU +system, and underneath them you would still have another complete +operating system which has no code in common with GNU. All in all, +that's a very different situation from GNU/Linux. +</dd> + +<dt id="justlinux">Can't Linux be used without GNU? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#justlinux">#justlinux</a>)</span></dt> + +<dd> +Linux is used by itself, or with small other programs, in some +appliances. These small software systems are a far cry from the +GNU/Linux system. Users do not install them on PCs, for instance, and +would find them rather disappointing. It is useful to say that these +appliances run just Linux, to show how different those small platforms +are from GNU/Linux. +</dd> + +<dt id="howmuch">How much of the GNU system is needed for the system +to be +GNU/Linux? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#howmuch">#howmuch</a>)</span></dt> + +<dd> +“How much” is not a meaningful question because the GNU +system does not have precise boundaries. +<p> +GNU is an operating system maintained by a community. It includes far +more than just the GNU software packages (of which we have a specific +list), and people add more packages constantly. Despite these +changes, it remains the GNU system, and adding Linux to that yields +GNU/Linux. If you use part of the GNU system and omit part, there is +no meaningful way to say “how much” you used.</p> +<p> +If we look at the level of packages, Linux is one important package in +the GNU/Linux system. The inclusion of one important GNU package is +enough to justify our request for equal mention. +</p> +</dd> + +<dt id="linuxsyswithoutgnu">Are there complete Linux systems [sic] without GNU? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#linuxsyswithoutgnu">#linuxsyswithoutgnu</a>)</span></dt> + +<dd> +There are complete systems that contain Linux and not GNU; Android is +an example. But it is a mistake to call them “Linux” +systems, just as it is a mistake to call GNU a “Linux” system. +<p> +Android is very different from the GNU/Linux system—because +the two have very little code in common. In fact, the only thing they +have in common is Linux.</p> +<p> +If you call the whole GNU/Linux system “Linux”, +you will find it necessary to say things like, “Android contains +Linux, but it isn't Linux, because it doesn't have the usual Linux +[sic] libraries and utilities [meaning the GNU system].”</p> +<p> +Android contains just as much of Linux as GNU/Linux does. What it +doesn't have is the GNU system. Android replaces that with Google +software that works quite differently. What makes Android different +from GNU/Linux is the absence of GNU.</p> +</dd> + +<dt id="usegnulinuxandandroid">Is it correct to say “using Linux” if it refers to using GNU/Linux and +using Android? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#usegnulinuxandandroidlinuxsyswithoutgnu">#usegnulinuxandandroidlinuxsyswithoutgnu</a>)</span></dt> + +<dd> +Far from it. That usage is so strained that +people will not understand the intended meaning. +<p> +The public will find it very strange to speak of using Android as +“using Linux”. It's like having a conversation, then +saying you were conversing with the person's intestines or the +person's circulatory system.</p> +<p> +The public <em>will</em> understand the idea of “using +Linux” when it's really GNU/Linux, by way of the usual +misunderstanding: thinking of the whole system as +“Linux”.</p> +<p> +Use of Android and use of GNU/Linux are totally different, as +different as driving a car and riding a bicycle. The fact that the +first two both contain Linux is irrelevant to using them, just as the +fact that a car and a bicycle both have a structure of metal is +irrelevant to using those two. If you wish to talk about using cars +and bikes, you wouldn't speak of “riding metal objects” +— not unless you're playing games with the reader. You would +say, “using cars and bikes.” Likewise, the clear way to +talk about using GNU/Linux and Android is to say “using +GNU/Linux and Android.”</p> +</dd> + +<dt id="helplinus">Why not call the system + “Linux” anyway, and strengthen Linus Torvalds' role as posterboy for our + community? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#helplinus">#helplinus</a>)</span></dt> + +<dd> +Linus Torvalds is the “posterboy” (other people's choice of word, not +ours) for his goals, not ours. His goal is to make the system more +popular, and he believes its value to society lies merely in the +practical advantages it offers: its power, reliability and easy +availability. He has never advocated +<a href="/philosophy/why-free.html">freedom to cooperate</a> as an +ethical principle, which is why the public does not connect the name +“Linux” with that principle. +<p> +Linus publicly states his disagreement with the free software +movement's ideals. He developed non-free software in his job for many +years (and said so to a large audience at a “Linux”World show), and +publicly invited fellow developers of Linux, the kernel, to use +non-free software to work on it with him. He goes even further, and +rebukes people who suggest that engineers and scientists should +consider social consequences of our technical work—rejecting the +lessons society learned from the development of the atom bomb.</p> +<p> +There is nothing wrong with writing a free program for the motivations +of learning and having fun; the kernel Linus wrote for those reasons +was an important contribution to our community. But those motivations +are not the reason why the complete free system, GNU/Linux, exists, +and they won't secure our freedom in the future. The public needs to +know this. Linus has the right to promote his views; however, people +should be aware that the operating system in question +stems from ideals of freedom, not from his views.</p> +</dd> + +<dt id="claimlinux">Isn't it wrong for us to label Linus Torvalds' + work as GNU? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#claimlinux">#claimlinux</a>)</span></dt> + +<dd> +It would be wrong, so we don't do that. Torvalds' work is Linux, the +kernel; we are careful not to attribute that work to the GNU Project +or label it as “GNU”. When we talk about the whole +system, the name “GNU/Linux” gives him a share of the +credit. +</dd> + + +<dt id="linusagreed">Does Linus Torvalds + agree that Linux is just the kernel? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#linusagreed">#linusagreed</a>)</span></dt> + +<dd> +<p>He recognized this at the beginning. The earliest Linux release notes +said, <a +href="http://ftp.funet.fi/pub/linux/historical/kernel/old-versions/RELNOTES-0.01"> +“Most of the tools used with linux are GNU software and are under the +GNU copyleft. These tools aren't in the distribution - ask me (or GNU) +for more info”</a>.</p> +</dd> + +<dt id="finishhurd">Why not finish the GNU Hurd kernel, release the GNU system + as a whole, and forget the question of what to call GNU/Linux? + <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#finishhurd">#finishhurd</a>)</span></dt> + +<dd> +We would like credit for the GNU operating system no matter which +kernel is used with it. + +<p>Making the GNU Hurd work well enough to compete with Linux would be +a big job, and it's not clearly necessary. The only thing ethically +wrong with Linux as a kernel is its inclusion of firmware +“blobs”; the best fix for that problem +is <a href="http://fsf.org/campaigns/priority-projects"> developing +free replacement for the blobs</a>.</p> +</dd> + +<dt id="lost">The battle is already lost—society + has made its decision and we can't change it, so why even think about + it? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#lost">#lost</a>)</span></dt> + +<dd> +This isn't a battle, it is a campaign of education. What to call the +system is not a single decision, to be made at one moment by +“society”: each person, each organization, can decide what +name to use. You can't make others say “GNU/Linux”, but +you can decide to call the system “GNU/Linux” +yourself—and by doing so, you will help educate others. +</dd> + +<dt id="whatgood">Society has made its + decision and we can't change it, so what good does it do if I say + “GNU/Linux”? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#whatgood">#whatgood</a>)</span></dt> + +<dd> +This is not an all-or-nothing situation: correct and incorrect +pictures are being spread more or less by various people. If you call +the system “GNU/Linux”, you will help others learn the system's true +history, origin, and reason for being. You can't correct the misnomer +everywhere on your own, any more than we can, but you can help. If +only a few hundred people see you use the term “GNU/Linux”, you will +have educated a substantial number of people with very little work. +And some of them will spread the correction to others. +</dd> + +<dt id="explain">Wouldn't it be better to call + the system “Linux” and teach people its real origin with a ten-minute + explanation? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#explain">#explain</a>)</span></dt> + +<dd> +If you help us by explaining to others in that way, we appreciate your +effort, but that is not the best method. It is not as effective as +calling the system “GNU/Linux”, and uses your time inefficiently. +<p> +It is ineffective because it may not sink in, and surely will not +propagate. Some of the people who hear your explanation will pay +attention, and they may learn a correct picture of the system's +origin. But they are unlikely to repeat the explanation to others +whenever they talk about the system. They will probably just call it +“Linux”. Without particularly intending to, they will help spread the +incorrect picture.</p> +<p> +It is inefficient because it takes a lot more time. Saying and +writing “GNU/Linux” will take you only a few seconds a day, not +minutes, so you can afford to reach far more people that way. +Distinguishing between Linux and GNU/Linux when you write and speak is +by far the easiest way to help the GNU Project effectively.</p> +</dd> + +<dt id="treatment">Some people laugh at you + when you ask them to call the system GNU/Linux. Why do you subject + yourself to this treatment? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#treatment">#treatment</a>)</span></dt> + +<dd> +Calling the system “Linux” tends to give people a mistaken picture of +the system's history and reason for existence. People who laugh at +our request probably have picked up that mistaken picture—they think +our work was done by Linus, so they laugh when we ask for credit for +it. If they knew the truth, they probably wouldn't laugh. +<p> +Why do we take the risk of making a request that sometimes leads +people to ridicule us? Because often it has useful results that help +the GNU Project. We will run the risk of undeserved abuse to achieve +our goals.</p> +<p> +If you see such an ironically unfair situation occurring, please don't +sit idly by. Please teach the laughing people the real history. When +they see why the request is justified, those who have any sense will +stop laughing.</p> +</dd> + +<dt id="alienate">Some people condemn you + when you ask them to call the system GNU/Linux. Don't you lose by + alienating them? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#alienate">#alienate</a>)</span></dt> + +<dd> +Not much. People who don't appreciate our role in developing the +system are unlikely to make substantial efforts to help us. If they +do work that advances our goals, such as releasing free software, it +is probably for other unrelated reasons, not because we asked them. +Meanwhile, by teaching others to attribute our work to someone else, +they are undermining our ability to recruit the help of others. +<p> +It makes no sense to worry about alienating people who are already +mostly uncooperative, and it is self-defeating to be deterred from +correcting a major problem lest we anger the people who perpetuate it. +Therefore, we will continue trying to correct the misnomer.</p> +</dd> + +<dt id="rename">Whatever you contributed, + is it legitimate to rename the operating system? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#rename">#rename</a>)</span></dt> + +<dd> +We are not renaming anything; we have been calling this system “GNU” +ever since we announced it in 1983. The people who tried to rename +it to “Linux” should not have done so.</dd> + +<dt id="force">Isn't it wrong to force people to call +the system “GNU/Linux”? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#force">#force</a>)</span></dt> + +<dd> +It would be wrong to force them, and we don't try. We call the system +“GNU/Linux”, and we ask you to do it too. +</dd> + +<dt id="whynotsue">Why not sue people who call +the whole system “Linux”? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#whynotsue">#whynotsue</a>)</span></dt> + +<dd> +There are no legal grounds to sue them, but since we believe in +freedom of speech, we wouldn't want to do that anyway. We ask people +to call the system “GNU/Linux” because that is the right thing to do. +</dd> + +<dt id="require">Shouldn't you put something in + the GNU GPL to require people to call the system “GNU”? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#require">#require</a>)</span></dt> + +<dd> +The purpose of the GNU GPL is to protect the users' freedom from those +who would make proprietary versions of free software. While it is +true that those who call the system “Linux” often do things that limit +the users' freedom, such as bundling non-free software with the +GNU/Linux system or even developing non-free software for such use, +the mere act of calling the system “Linux” does not, in itself, deny +users their freedom. It seems improper to make the GPL restrict what +name people can use for the system. +</dd> + +<dt id="BSDlicense">Since you objected to the original BSD license's +advertising requirement to give credit to the University of California, +isn't it hypocritical to demand credit for the GNU project? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#BSDlicense">#BSDlicense</a>)</span></dt> + +<dd> +It would be hypocritical to make the name GNU/Linux a license +requirement, and we don't. We only <em>ask</em> you to give us the +credit we deserve. + +<p> +Please note that there are at least <a href="/licenses/bsd.html"> +two different BSD licenses</a>. For clarity's sake, please don't use +the term “BSD license” without specifying which one.</p> +</dd> + +<dt id="deserve">Since you failed to put + something in the GNU GPL to require people to call the system “GNU”, + you deserve what happened; why are you complaining now? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#deserve">#deserve</a>)</span></dt> + +<dd> +The question presupposes a rather controversial general ethical +premise: that if people do not force you to treat them fairly, you are +entitled to take advantage of them as much as you like. In other +words, it assumes that might makes right. +<p> +We hope you disagree with that premise just as we do.</p> +</dd> + +<dt id="contradict">Wouldn't you be better + off not contradicting what so many people believe? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#contradict">#contradict</a>)</span></dt> + +<dd> +We don't think we should go along with large numbers of people because +they have been misled. We hope you too will decide that truth is +important. +<p> +We could never have developed a free operating system without first +denying the belief, held by most people, that proprietary software +was legitimate and acceptable.</p> +</dd> + +<dt id="somanyright">Since many people call +it “Linux”, doesn't that make it right? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#somanyright">#somanyright</a>)</span></dt> + +<dd> +We don't think that the popularity of an error makes it the truth. +</dd> + +<dt id="knownname">Isn't it better to call the + system by the name most users already know? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#knownname">#knownname</a>)</span></dt> + +<dd> +Users are not incapable of learning. Since “GNU/Linux” +includes “Linux”, they will recognize what you're talking +about. If you add “(often erroneously referred to as +‘Linux’)” once in a while, they will all understand. +</dd> + +<dt id="winning">Many people care about what's + convenient or who's winning, not about arguments of right or wrong. + Couldn't you get more of their support by a different + road? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#winning">#winning</a>)</span></dt> + +<dd> +To care only about what's convenient or who's winning is an amoral +approach to life. Non-free software is an example of that amoral +approach and thrives on it. Thus, in the long run it would be +self-defeating for us to adopt that approach. We will continue +talking in terms of right and wrong. +<p> +We hope that you are one of those for whom right and wrong do matter.</p> +</dd> + +</dl> + +</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above --> +<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --> +<div id="footer"> +<div class="unprintable"> + +<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to +<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>. +There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> +the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent +to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p> + +<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph, + replace it with the translation of these two: + + We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality + translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection. + Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard + to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org"> + <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p> + + <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of + our web pages, see <a + href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations + README</a>. --> +Please see the <a +href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations +README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations +of this article.</p> +</div> + +<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to + files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should + be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this + without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first. + Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the + document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the + document was modified, or published. + + If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too. + Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying + years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable + year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including + being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system). + + There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers + Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. --> + +<p>Copyright © 2001, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2020 +Free Software Foundation, Inc.</p> + +<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license" +href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative +Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p> + +<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --> + +<p class="unprintable">Updated: +<!-- timestamp start --> +$Date: 2020/05/04 07:34:37 $ +<!-- timestamp end --> +</p> +</div> +</div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include --> +</body> +</html> |