From 1ae0306a3cf2ea27f60b2d205789994d260c2cce Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Christian Grothoff Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2020 13:29:45 +0200 Subject: add i18n FSFS --- .../blog/articles/en/why-gnu-linux.html | 263 +++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 263 insertions(+) create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/why-gnu-linux.html (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/why-gnu-linux.html') diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/why-gnu-linux.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/why-gnu-linux.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..2c79945 --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/why-gnu-linux.html @@ -0,0 +1,263 @@ + + +Why GNU/Linux? +- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + +

What's in a Name?

+ +

by Richard Stallman

+ +
+

To learn more about this issue, you can read +our GNU/Linux FAQ, our page on +Linux and the GNU Project, which gives a history of the GNU/Linux system as it relates to this issue of naming, +and our page on GNU +Users Who Have Never Heard of GNU. + +

+
+ +

+Names convey meanings; our choice of names determines the meaning of +what we say. An inappropriate name gives people the wrong idea. A +rose by any other name would smell as sweet—but if you call it a pen, +people will be rather disappointed when they try to write with it. +And if you call pens “roses”, people may not realize what +they are good for. If you call our operating system +Linux, that conveys a mistaken idea of the system's +origin, history, and purpose. If you call +it GNU/Linux, that conveys +(though not in detail) an accurate idea.

+

+Does this really matter for our community? Is it important whether people +know the system's origin, history, and purpose? Yes—because people +who forget history are often condemned to repeat it. The Free World +that has developed around GNU/Linux +is not guaranteed to survive; the problems that +led us to develop GNU are not completely eradicated, and they threaten +to come back.

+ +

+When I explain why it's appropriate to call the operating system +GNU/Linux rather than Linux, people +sometimes respond this way:

+ +

+ + Granted that the GNU Project deserves credit for this work, is + it really worth a fuss when people don't give credit? Isn't the + important thing that the job was done, not who did it? You + ought to relax, take pride in the job well done, and not worry + about the credit. + +

+

+This would be wise advice, if only the situation were like that—if +the job were done and it were time to relax. If only that were true! +But challenges abound, and this is no time to take the future for +granted. Our community's strength rests on commitment to freedom and +cooperation. Using the name GNU/Linux +is a way for people to remind +themselves and inform others of these goals.

+ +

+It is possible to write good free software without thinking of GNU; +much good work has been done in the name of Linux also. But the term +“Linux” has been associated ever since it was first coined +with a philosophy that does not make a commitment to the freedom to +cooperate. As the name is increasingly used by business, we will +have even more trouble making it connect with community spirit.

+ +

+A great challenge to the future of free software comes from the +tendency of the “Linux” distribution companies to add +nonfree software to GNU/Linux +in the name of convenience and power. All the major commercial +distribution developers do this; none limits itself to free software. +Most of them do not clearly identify the nonfree +packages in their distributions. Many even develop nonfree software +and add it to the system. Some outrageously advertise +“Linux” systems that are “licensed per seat”, +which give the user as much freedom as Microsoft Windows.

+ +

+People try to justify adding nonfree software in the name of the +“popularity of Linux”—in effect, valuing popularity above +freedom. Sometimes this is openly admitted. For instance, Wired +Magazine said that Robert McMillan, editor of Linux Magazine, “feels +that the move toward open source software should be fueled by +technical, rather than political, decisions.” And Caldera's +CEO openly urged +users +to drop +the goal of freedom and work instead for the “popularity of +Linux”.

+ +

+Adding nonfree software to the GNU/Linux system may increase the +popularity, if by popularity we mean the number of people using some +of GNU/Linux in combination with +nonfree software. But at the same time, it implicitly encourages the +community to accept nonfree software as a good thing, and forget the +goal of freedom. It is not good to drive faster if you can't stay on the +road.

+ +

+When the nonfree “add-on” is a library or programming +tool, it can become a trap for free software developers. When they +write free software that depends on the nonfree package, their +software cannot be part of a completely free system. Motif and Qt +trapped large amounts of free software in this way in the past, +creating problems whose solutions took years. Motif remained somewhat +of a problem until it became obsolete and was no longer used. Later, +Sun's nonfree Java implementation had a similar effect: +the Java Trap, fortunately now +mostly corrected.

+ +

+If our community keeps moving in this direction, it could redirect the +future of GNU/Linux into a mosaic of free and nonfree components. +Five years from now, we will surely still have plenty of free +software; but if we are not careful, it will hardly be usable without +the nonfree software that users expect to find with it. If this +happens, our campaign for freedom will have failed.

+ +

+If releasing free alternatives were simply a matter of programming, +solving future problems might become easier as our community's +development resources increase. But we face obstacles that threaten +to make this harder: laws that prohibit free software. As software +patents mount up, and as laws like the +DMCA are +used to prohibit the development of free software for important jobs +such as viewing a DVD or listening to a RealAudio stream, we will find +ourselves with no clear way to fight the patented and secret data +formats except to reject the nonfree programs that use +them.

+ +

+Meeting these challenges will require many different kinds of effort. +But what we need above all, to confront any kind of challenge, is to +remember the goal of freedom to cooperate. We can't expect a mere +desire for powerful, reliable software to motivate people to make +great efforts. We need the kind of determination that people have +when they fight for their freedom and their community—determination +to keep on for years and not give up.

+ +

+In our community, this goal and this determination emanate mainly from +the GNU Project. We're the ones who talk about freedom and community +as something to stand firm for; the organizations that speak of +“Linux” normally don't say this. The magazines about +“Linux” are typically full of ads for nonfree software; +the companies that package “Linux” add nonfree software +to the system; other companies “support Linux” by +developing nonfree applications to run on GNU/Linux; the user groups +for “Linux” typically invite salesman to present those +applications. The main place people in our community are likely to +come across the idea of freedom and determination is in the GNU +Project.

+ +

+But when people come across it, will they feel it relates to them?

+ +

+People who know they are using a system that came out of the GNU +Project can see a direct relationship between themselves and GNU. +They won't automatically agree with our philosophy, but at least they +will see a reason to think seriously about it. In contrast, people +who consider themselves “Linux users”, and believe that +the GNU Project “developed tools which proved to be useful in +Linux”, typically perceive only an indirect relationship between +GNU and themselves. They may just ignore the GNU philosophy when they +come across it.

+ +

+The GNU Project is idealistic, and anyone encouraging idealism today +faces a great obstacle: the prevailing ideology encourages people to +dismiss idealism as “impractical”. Our idealism has been +extremely practical: it is the reason we have a +free GNU/Linux operating system. +People who love this system ought to know that it is our idealism made +real.

+ +

+If “the job” really were done, if there were nothing at +stake except credit, perhaps it would be wiser to let the matter drop. +But we are not in that position. To inspire people to do the work +that needs to be done, we need to be recognized for what we have +already done. Please help us, by calling the operating +system GNU/Linux.

+ +
+

This essay is published in + +Free Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard +M. Stallman.

+ + + + + + + -- cgit v1.2.3