taler-merchant-demos

gnu-linux-faq.html (80064B)

---

 <!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
 <!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 -->
 <!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html -->
 <!--#set var="TAGS" value="gnulinux" -->
 <!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" -->
 <title>GNU/Linux FAQ
 - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
 <!--#include virtual="/gnu/po/gnu-linux-faq.translist" -->
 <!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
 <!--#include virtual="/gnu/gnu-breadcrumb.html" -->
 <!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
 <!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" -->
 <div class="article reduced-width">
 <h2>GNU/Linux FAQ</h2>
 
 <address class="byline">by Richard Stallman</address>
 
 <div class="introduction">
 <p>
 When people see that we use and recommend the name GNU/Linux for a
 system that many others call just &ldquo;Linux,&rdquo; they ask many questions.
 Here are common questions, and our answers.</p>
 </div>
 
 <div class="toc">
 <hr class="no-display" />
 <h3 class="no-display">Table of Contents</h3>
 <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 &ldquo;Linux&rdquo;?</a></li>
 
 <li><a href="#always">Should we always say
 &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; instead of &ldquo;Linux&rdquo;?</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
     &ldquo;GNU/&rdquo; 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
     &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; to &ldquo;Linux&rdquo; just like
     shortening &ldquo;Microsoft Windows&rdquo; to
     &ldquo;Windows&rdquo;?</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 &ldquo;GNU&rdquo;
     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 &ldquo;the
     feel of Linux&rdquo;?</a></li>
 
 <li><a href="#long">The problem with
     &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; is that it is too long.  How about
     recommending a shorter name?</a></li>
 
 <li><a href="#long1">How about calling the system
     &ldquo;GliNUx&rdquo; (instead of &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo;)?</a></li>
 
 <li><a href="#long2">The problem with
     &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; is that it is too long.  Why should
     I go to the trouble of saying &ldquo;GNU/&rdquo;?</a></li>
 
 <li><a href="#long3">Unfortunately,
     &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; 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
     &ldquo;Richard Matthew Stallman&rdquo; every the time.
     So why ask us to say &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;GNU&rdquo;?</a></li>
 
 <li><a href="#trademarkfee">I would have to pay a
     fee if I use &ldquo;Linux&rdquo; in the name of a product, and
     that would also apply if I say &ldquo;GNU/Linux.&rdquo;  Is it
     wrong if I use &ldquo;GNU&rdquo; without &ldquo;Linux,&rdquo; 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&nbsp;Hat/Novell/Linux?</a></li>
 
 <li><a href="#whyslash">Why do you write
     &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; instead of &ldquo;GNU
     Linux&rdquo;?</a></li>
 
 <li><a href="#linuxlibre">Does GNU have its own version of Linux,
     the kernel?</a></li>
 
 <li><a href="#pronounce">How is the name &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo;
 pronounced?</a></li>
 
 <li><a href="#whynoslash">Why do you write
     &ldquo;GNU Emacs&rdquo; rather than &ldquo;GNU/Emacs&rdquo;?</a></li>
 
 <li><a href="#whyorder">Why &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo;
 rather than &ldquo;Linux/GNU&rdquo;?</a></li>
 
 <li><a href="#distronames0">My distro's developers call it
     &ldquo;Foobar Linux,&rdquo; 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
     &ldquo;Foobar Linux&rdquo;; doesn't that show it's really
     Linux?</a></li>
 
 <li><a href="#distronames1">My distro's official
     name is &ldquo;Foobar Linux&rdquo;; isn't it wrong to call the
     distro anything but &ldquo;Foobar Linux&rdquo;?</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 &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; rather than
     asking individuals?</a></li>
 
 <li><a href="#reserve">Wouldn't it be better to
     reserve the name &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;Linux
     is the GNU kernel&rdquo; and release some existing version of
     GNU/Linux under the name &ldquo;GNU&rdquo;?</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 &ldquo;Unix&rdquo; in
     its name?</a></li>
 
 <li><a href="#bsd">Should we say &ldquo;GNU/BSD&rdquo;
 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 &ldquo;using
     Linux&rdquo; if it refers to using GNU/Linux and using Android?</a></li>
 
 <li><a href="#helplinus">Why not call the system
     &ldquo;Linux&rdquo; 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&mdash;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
     &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo;?</a></li>
 
 <li><a href="#explain">Wouldn't it be better to call
     the system &ldquo;Linux&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo;?</a></li>
 
 <li><a href="#whynotsue">Why not sue people who call
     the whole system &ldquo;Linux&rdquo;?</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
     &ldquo;GNU&rdquo;?</a></li>
 
 <li><a href="#deserve">Since you failed to put
     something in the GNU GPL to require people to call the system
     &ldquo;GNU,&rdquo; 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
     &ldquo;Linux,&rdquo; 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>
 </div>
 
 <div class="announcement comment" role="complementary">
 <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 System</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>
 <hr class="no-display" />
 </div>
 
 <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&mdash;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>
 <p>
 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.</p>
 </dd>
 
 <dt id="howerror">How did it come about that most
     people call the system &ldquo;Linux&rdquo;? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#howerror">#howerror</a>)</span></dt>
 
 <dd>Calling the system &ldquo;Linux&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;Linux&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;Linux&rdquo; have never heard why
 that's not the right thing.  They saw others using that name and
 assume it must be right.  The name &ldquo;Linux&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;Linux.&rdquo;</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
     &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; instead of &ldquo;Linux&rdquo;? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#always">#always</a>)</span></dt>
 <dd>
 Not always&mdash;only when you're talking about the whole system.  When
 you're referring specifically to the kernel, you should call it
 &ldquo;Linux,&rdquo; the name its developer chose.
 <p>
 When people call the whole system &ldquo;Linux,&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;GNU/Linux,&rdquo; and calling the kernel
 &ldquo;Linux,&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;GNU/Linux,&rdquo; 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&mdash;it is a matter
 of differing basic values.  It is essential for the community to see
 and think about this disagreement.  The names &ldquo;free
 software&rdquo; and &ldquo;open source&rdquo; 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
 &ldquo;GNU/Linux,&rdquo; and people who learn that the system is &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; 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>
 <p>
 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.</p>
 </dd>
 
 <dt id="everyoneknows">Since everyone knows the role
     of GNU in developing the system, doesn't the &ldquo;GNU/&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;GNU,&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;<a href="#tools">tools</a>,&rdquo; or a project to develop tools.</p>
 <p>
 The wording of this question, which is typical, illustrates another
 common misconception.  To speak of &ldquo;GNU's role&rdquo; 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>
 <p>
 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
 &ldquo;Linux,&rdquo; that it was started by Linus Torvalds, and that
 it was intended to be &ldquo;open source.&rdquo;  If you don't tell
 them, who will?</p>
 </dd>
 
 <dt id="windows">Isn't shortening &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo;
     to &ldquo;Linux&rdquo; just like shortening &ldquo;Microsoft Windows&rdquo; to &ldquo;Windows&rdquo;? <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
 &ldquo;Windows&rdquo; system is made by Microsoft, so shortening &ldquo;Microsoft
 Windows&rdquo; to &ldquo;Windows&rdquo; does not mislead anyone as to that system's
 nature and origin.  Shortening &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; to &ldquo;Linux&rdquo; 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&mdash;often they
 say &ldquo;programming tools,&rdquo; since some of our programming tools became
 popular on their own.  The idea that &ldquo;GNU&rdquo; is the name of an operating
 system is hard to fit into a conceptual framework in which that
 operating system is labeled &ldquo;Linux.&rdquo;
 <p>
 The GNU Project was named after the GNU operating system&mdash;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&mdash;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 &ldquo;operating system&rdquo; to
 mean &ldquo;kernel.&rdquo;  Both uses of the term go back many years.  The
 use of &ldquo;operating system&rdquo; to mean &ldquo;kernel&rdquo; is found in a number of
 textbooks on system design, going back to the 80s.  At the same time,
 in the 80s, the &ldquo;Unix operating system&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;operating system&rdquo; in the same way.</p>
 <p>
 Most of the time when people speak of the &ldquo;Linux operating system&rdquo;
 they are using &ldquo;operating system&rdquo; in the same sense we use: they mean
 the whole collection of programs.  If that's what you are referring
 to, please call it &ldquo;GNU/Linux.&rdquo;  If you mean just the kernel, then
 &ldquo;Linux&rdquo; is the right name for it, but please say &ldquo;kernel&rdquo; also to
 avoid ambiguity about which body of software you mean.</p>
 <p>
 If you prefer to use some other term such as &ldquo;system distribution&rdquo; for
 the entire collection of programs, instead of &ldquo;operating system,&rdquo;
 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>
 <p>
 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.</p>
 </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>
 <p>
 No, many components take a lot of work.</p>
 </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
 &ldquo;Linux&rdquo; are using a double standard.  An operating system
 requires compilers, editors, window systems, libraries, and much
 more&mdash;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 &ldquo;Linux&rdquo;?
 
 <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 &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; gives credit to each.</p>
 </dd>
 
 <dt id="notinstallable">How can GNU be an
     operating system, if I can't get something called &ldquo;GNU&rdquo;
     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
 &ldquo;GNU,&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;GNU&rdquo; because that was
 to be the name of a system version with the GNU Hurd kernel&mdash;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
 &ldquo;GNU,&rdquo; 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&mdash;we can't find any examples other
 than the misuse of the name &ldquo;Linux.&rdquo;  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&mdash;instead, people say &ldquo;the kernel of such-and-such&rdquo; or
 &ldquo;the such-and-such kernel.&rdquo;
 <p>
 Because those two constructions are used synonymously, the expression
 &ldquo;the Linux kernel&rdquo; can easily be misunderstood as meaning &ldquo;the kernel
 of Linux&rdquo; and implying that Linux must be more than a kernel.  You can
 avoid the possibility of this misunderstanding by saying or writing
 &ldquo;the kernel, Linux&rdquo; or &ldquo;Linux, the kernel.&rdquo;</p>
 </dd>
 
 <dt id="feel">Can another system have &ldquo;the
     feel of Linux&rdquo;? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#feel">#feel</a>)</span></dt>
 
 <dd>
 <p>
 There is no such thing as the &ldquo;feel of Linux&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;feel&rdquo; comes from them.</p>
 </dd>
 
 <dt id="long">The problem with &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;LiGNUx,&rdquo; which combines the words &ldquo;GNU&rdquo;
 and &ldquo;Linux.&rdquo;  The reaction was very bad.  People accept &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo;
 much better.
 <p>
 The shortest legitimate name for this system is &ldquo;GNU,&rdquo; but
 we call it &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; <a href="#justgnu"> for the reasons
 given below</a>.</p>
 </dd>
 
 <dt id="long1">How about calling the system
     &ldquo;GliNUx&rdquo; (instead of &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo;)?
    <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#long1">#long1</a>)</span></dt>
 
 <dd>
 <p>The name &ldquo;GNU&rdquo; does not visibly appear in
 &ldquo;Glinux,&rdquo; so most people would not notice it is there.
 Even if it is capitalized as &ldquo;GliNUx,&rdquo; most people would
 not realize that it contains a reference to GNU.</p>
 
 <p>It would be comparable to writing &ldquo;GNU/Linux,&rdquo; but
 putting &ldquo;GNU/&rdquo; in print so small that most people could
 not read it.</p>
 </dd>
 
 <dt id="long2">The problem with &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; is that it is too long.
     Why should I go to the trouble of saying &ldquo;GNU/&rdquo;?
     <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#long2">#long2</a>)</span></dt>
 
 <dd>
 <p>It only takes a second to say or type &ldquo;GNU/.&rdquo;  If you
 appreciate the system that we developed, can't you take one second
 to recognize our work?</p>
 </dd>
 
 <dt id="long3">Unfortunately, &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; 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, &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; is only four syllables.
   &ldquo;Unfortunately&rdquo; 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
     &ldquo;Richard Matthew Stallman&rdquo; every the time.
     So why ask us to say &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; every time?
   <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#long4">#long4</a>)</span></dt>
 <dd>
 <p>Omitting &ldquo;Matthew&rdquo; does not misrepresent anything
 important about Stallman's nature, origin, ideas or purpose.  Omitting
 &ldquo;GNU&rdquo; 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, &ldquo;Why
 shouldn't we call Stallman &lsquo;Torvalds&rsquo;?&rdquo;
 </p></dd>
 
 <dt id="justgnu">Since Linux is a secondary
     contribution, would it be false to the facts to call the system simply
     &ldquo;GNU&rdquo;? <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 &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo;
 rather than just &ldquo;GNU&rdquo;:
 
 <ul>
 <li>
 It's not exactly GNU&mdash;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 &ldquo;Linux&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;Linux,&rdquo; if we say &ldquo;GNU&rdquo; they
 may simply not recognize we're talking about the same system.  If we
 say &ldquo;GNU/Linux,&rdquo; they can make a connection to what they have heard
 about.</li>
 </ul>
 </dd>
 
 <dt id="trademarkfee">I would have
     to pay a fee if I use &ldquo;Linux&rdquo; in the name of a product, and that
     would also apply if I say &ldquo;GNU/Linux.&rdquo;  Is it wrong if I use &ldquo;GNU&rdquo;
     without &ldquo;Linux,&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;GNU&rdquo;; 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 &ldquo;GNU,&rdquo; to avoid paying
 the fee for calling it &ldquo;Linux,&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;Linux.&rdquo;
 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>
 <p>
 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 &ldquo;GNU/systemd/Linux,&rdquo; there is nothing
 wrong with doing so.</p>
 </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
 &ldquo;main&rdquo; repository of the gNewSense GNU/Linux distribution.
 Linux made up 1.5%.  So the same argument would apply even more
 strongly to calling it &ldquo;Linux.&rdquo;
 
 <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 &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo;
 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&nbsp;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 &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo;
 instead of &ldquo;GNU Linux&rdquo;? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#whyslash">#whyslash</a>)</span></dt>
 
 <dd>
 Following the rules of English, in the construction &ldquo;GNU Linux&rdquo; the
 word &ldquo;GNU&rdquo; modifies &ldquo;Linux.&rdquo;  This can mean either &ldquo;GNU's version of
 Linux&rdquo; or &ldquo;Linux, which is a GNU package.&rdquo;  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
 &ldquo;Linux, which is a GNU package&rdquo; 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="https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Linux-libre">separate version of
 Linux</a>, since the &ldquo;standard&rdquo; version contains nonfree
 firmware &ldquo;blobs.&rdquo;  If this were part of the GNU Project,
 it could be considered &ldquo;GNU Linux&rdquo;; 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 &ldquo;combination.&rdquo; (Think of
 &ldquo;Input/Output.&rdquo;)  It's the GNU system, with the kernel
 Linux underneath; hence, &ldquo;GNU/Linux.&rdquo;</p>
 <p>
 There are other ways to express &ldquo;combination.&rdquo;  If you
 think that a plus-sign is clearer, please use that.  In French, a
 hyphen is clear: &ldquo;GNU-Linux.&rdquo;  In Spanish, we sometimes
 say &ldquo;GNU con Linux.&rdquo;</p>
 </dd>
 
 <dt id="linuxlibre">Does GNU have its own version of Linux, the kernel? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#linuxlibre">#linuxlibre</a>)</span></dt>
 
 <dd>
 Yes and no.  The free GNU/Linux distros use slightly modified versions
 of Linux, modified to remove the nonfree firmware &ldquo;blobs&rdquo;
 contained in the &ldquo;standard&rdquo; release of Linux.  Some of
 them use <a href="https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Linux-libre">GNU
 Linux-Libre</a>, which is the GNU Project's freed version of Linux.
 But this is not a fork; rather, it is a version of Linux&mdash;we
 take the source of each standard Linux release and de-blob it.
 <p>
 Other free distros make their own arrangements to remove the blobs
 from Linux.</p>
 </dd>
 
 <dt id="pronounce">How is the name &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo;
 pronounced? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#pronounce">#pronounce</a>)</span></dt>
 <dd>
 <p>
 Please pronounce it as &ldquo;GNU slash Linux.&rdquo;  If you don't pronounce
 the slash, people will think you are saying &ldquo;GNU Linux,&rdquo;
 which is <a href="#whyslash">not a suitable name for the combination</a>.
 </p>
 </dd>
 
 <dt id="whynoslash">Why do you write &ldquo;GNU Emacs&rdquo;
 rather than &ldquo;GNU/Emacs&rdquo;? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#whynoslash">#whynoslash</a>)</span></dt>
 
 <dd>
 <p>
 Following the rules of English, in the construction &ldquo;GNU
 Emacs&rdquo; the word &ldquo;GNU&rdquo; modifies &ldquo;Emacs.&rdquo;
 That is the right way to describe a program called Emacs which is a
 GNU package.</p>
 <p>
 &ldquo;GNU/Emacs&rdquo; would mean the combination of GNU, the
 operating system, and the program Emacs.  That doesn't fit this
 program, so &ldquo;GNU/Emacs&rdquo; is the wrong way to refer to it.</p>
 </dd>
 
 <dt id="whyorder">Why &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; rather
 than &ldquo;Linux/GNU&rdquo;? <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, &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;Linux/GNU,&rdquo; 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
     &ldquo;Foobar Linux,&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;Foobar Linux&rdquo; implies that it's a flavor
 of &ldquo;Linux,&rdquo; and people <a href="#distronames">understand
 it that way</a>.
 
 <p>
 If they called a GNU/Linux distro &ldquo;Foobar BSD,&rdquo; you would
 call that a mistake.  &ldquo;This system is not BSD,&rdquo; you
 would tell them.  Well, it's not Linux either.</p>
 </dd>
 
 <dt id="distronames">My distro is called
     &ldquo;Foobar Linux&rdquo;; 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 &ldquo;Foobar Linux&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;Foobar
     Linux&rdquo;; isn't it wrong to call the distro
     anything but &ldquo;Foobar Linux&rdquo;? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#distronames1">#distronames1</a>)</span></dt>
 
 <dd><p>When they spread misinformation by changing &ldquo;GNU&rdquo;
 to &ldquo;Linux,&rdquo; and call their version of it &ldquo;Foobar
 Linux,&rdquo; it's proper for you to correct the misinformation by
 calling it &ldquo;Foobar GNU/Linux.&rdquo;</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 &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; 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&mdash;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 &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; some of the time, but IBM
 and Red Hat were unwilling to help.  One executive said, &ldquo;This
 is a pure commercial decision; we expect to make more money calling it
 &lsquo;Linux&rsquo;.&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;GNU/Linux.&rdquo;</p>
 </dd>
 
 <dt id="reserve">Wouldn't it be better to
     reserve the name &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; 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 nonfree software to the GNU/Linux
 system is a major problem for our community.  It teaches the users
 that nonfree software is ok, and that using it is part of the spirit
 of &ldquo;Linux.&rdquo;  Many &ldquo;Linux&rdquo; User Groups make it part of their mission to
 help users use nonfree add-ons, and may even invite salesmen to come
 and make sales pitches for them.  They adopt goals such as &ldquo;helping
 the users&rdquo; of GNU/Linux (including helping them use nonfree
 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 nonfree software as perverted, adulterated versions of
 GNU, instead of thinking they are proper and appropriate &ldquo;versions of
 Linux.&rdquo;</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 &ldquo;Linux&rdquo; distributions are actually versions of the GNU system
 with Linux as the kernel.  The purpose of the term &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; is to
 communicate this point.  To develop one new distribution and call that
 alone &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; 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 Trisquel and Parabola.</p>
 </dd>
 
 <dt id="linuxgnu">Why not just say &ldquo;Linux is
     the GNU kernel&rdquo; and release some existing version of GNU/Linux under
     the name &ldquo;GNU&rdquo;? <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
 &ldquo;GNU,&rdquo; that would be somewhat like making a version of the GNU system
 and labeling it &ldquo;Linux.&rdquo;  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 &ldquo;Linux user.&rdquo;
 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 &ldquo;Linux,&rdquo; and that this confusion was
 obstructing our work.  Asking you to call the system &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; is
 our response to that problem, and to the other problems caused by the
 &ldquo;Linux&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;GNU/<i>name</i>.&rdquo;  When a program
 is a GNU package, we may call it &ldquo;GNU <i>name</i>.&rdquo;
 <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 &ldquo;GNU&rdquo; 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">&lt;gnu@gnu.org&gt;</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&mdash;he
 did the work independently.  If something is not a GNU package, the
 GNU Project can't take credit for it, and putting &ldquo;GNU&rdquo; 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&mdash;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 &ldquo;Unix&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;GNU,&rdquo; which stands for &ldquo;GNU's Not
 Unix,&rdquo; 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, &ldquo;TINT Is Not
 TECO.&rdquo;  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 &ldquo;<em>somethingorother</em> TECO,&rdquo; he
 thought of a clever amusing name.  (That's what hacking
 means: <a href="https://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 &ldquo;Klever&rdquo;), you could give it a recursive acronym name, such
 as &ldquo;MINK&rdquo; for &ldquo;MINK Is Not Klever.&rdquo;  In this same spirit we called our
 replacement for Unix &ldquo;GNU's Not Unix.&rdquo;</p>
 <p>
 Historically, AT&amp;T which developed Unix did not want anyone to
 give it credit by using &ldquo;Unix&rdquo; in the name of a similar
 system, not even in a system 99% copied from Unix.  AT&amp;T actually
 threatened to sue anyone giving AT&amp;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
 &ldquo;Unix.&rdquo;</p>
 </dd>
 
 <dt id="bsd">Should we say &ldquo;GNU/BSD&rdquo;
 too? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#bsd">#bsd</a>)</span></dt>
 
 <dd>
 We don't call the BSD systems (FreeBSD, etc.) &ldquo;GNU/BSD&rdquo; systems,
 because that term does not fit the history of the BSD systems.
 <p>
 The BSD system was developed by UC Berkeley as nonfree 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 &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; is appropriate for it.</p>
 <p>
 There is a version of GNU which uses the kernel from NetBSD.  Its
 developers call it &ldquo;Debian GNU/NetBSD,&rdquo; but &ldquo;GNU/kernelofNetBSD&rdquo;
 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>
 <p>
 Not in the same sense that we mean by &ldquo;GNU/Linux.&rdquo;  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.</p>
 </dd>
 
 <dt id="justlinux">Can't Linux be used without GNU? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#justlinux">#justlinux</a>)</span></dt>
 
 <dd>
 <p>
 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.</p>
 </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>
 &ldquo;How much&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;how much&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;Linux&rdquo;
 systems, just as it is a mistake to call GNU a &ldquo;Linux&rdquo; system.
 <p>
 Android is very different from the GNU/Linux system&mdash;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 &ldquo;Linux,&rdquo;
 you will find it necessary to say things like, &ldquo;Android contains
 Linux, but it isn't Linux, because it doesn't have the usual Linux
 [sic] libraries and utilities [meaning the GNU system].&rdquo;</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 &ldquo;using Linux&rdquo; 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
 &ldquo;using Linux.&rdquo;  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 &ldquo;using
 Linux&rdquo; when it's really GNU/Linux, by way of the usual
 misunderstanding: thinking of the whole system as
 &ldquo;Linux.&rdquo;</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 &ldquo;riding metal objects&rdquo;&mdash;not
 unless you're playing games with the reader.  You would
 say, &ldquo;using cars and bikes.&rdquo; Likewise, the clear way to
 talk about using GNU/Linux and Android is to say &ldquo;using
 GNU/Linux and Android.&rdquo;</p>
 </dd>
 
 <dt id="helplinus">Why not call the system
     &ldquo;Linux&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;posterboy&rdquo; (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
 &ldquo;Linux&rdquo; with that principle.
 <p>
 Linus publicly states his disagreement with the free software
 movement's ideals.  He developed nonfree software in his job for many
 years (and said so to a large audience at a &ldquo;Linux&rdquo;World show), and
 publicly invited fellow developers of Linux, the kernel, to use
 nonfree 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&mdash;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>
 <p>
 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 &ldquo;GNU.&rdquo;  When we talk about the whole
 system, the name &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; gives him a share of the
 credit.</p>
 </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 <a
 href="https://ftp.funet.fi/pub/linux/historical/kernel/old-versions/RELNOTES-0.01">
 earliest Linux release notes</a> said:</p>
 <blockquote><p>
 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.
 </p></blockquote>
 </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
 &ldquo;blobs&rdquo;; the best fix for that problem
 is <a href="https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/priority-projects"> developing
 free replacement for the blobs</a>.</p>
 </dd>
 
 <dt id="lost">The battle is already lost&mdash;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>
 <p>
 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
 &ldquo;society&rdquo;: each person, each organization, can decide what
 name to use.  You can't make others say &ldquo;GNU/Linux,&rdquo; but
 you can decide to call the system &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo;
 yourself&mdash;and by doing so, you will help educate others.</p>
 </dd>
 
 <dt id="whatgood">Society has made its
     decision and we can't change it, so what good does it do if I say
     &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo;? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#whatgood">#whatgood</a>)</span></dt>
 
 <dd>
 <p>
 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 &ldquo;GNU/Linux,&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;GNU/Linux,&rdquo; you will
 have educated a substantial number of people with very little work.
 And some of them will spread the correction to others.</p>
 </dd>
 
 <dt id="explain">Wouldn't it be better to call
     the system &ldquo;Linux&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;GNU/Linux,&rdquo; 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
 &ldquo;Linux.&rdquo;  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 &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;Linux&rdquo; 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&mdash;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>
 <p>
 We are not renaming anything; we have been calling this system &ldquo;GNU&rdquo;
 ever since we announced it in 1983.  The people who tried to rename
 it to &ldquo;Linux&rdquo; should not have done so.</p>
 </dd>
 
 <dt id="force">Isn't it wrong to force people to call
 the system &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo;? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#force">#force</a>)</span></dt>
 
 <dd>
 <p>
 It would be wrong to force them, and we don't try.  We call the system
 &ldquo;GNU/Linux,&rdquo; and we ask you to do it too.</p>
 </dd>
 
 <dt id="whynotsue">Why not sue people who call
 the whole system &ldquo;Linux&rdquo;? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#whynotsue">#whynotsue</a>)</span></dt>
 
 <dd>
 <p>
 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 &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; because that is the right thing to do.</p>
 </dd>
 
 <dt id="require">Shouldn't you put something in
     the GNU GPL to require people to call the system &ldquo;GNU&rdquo;? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#require">#require</a>)</span></dt>
 
 <dd>
 <p>
 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 &ldquo;Linux&rdquo; often do things that limit
 the users' freedom, such as bundling nonfree software with the
 GNU/Linux system or even developing nonfree software for such use,
 the mere act of calling the system &ldquo;Linux&rdquo; does not, in itself, deny
 users their freedom.  It seems improper to make the GPL restrict what
 name people can use for the system.</p>
 </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 &ldquo;BSD license&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;GNU,&rdquo;
     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 &ldquo;Linux,&rdquo; doesn't that make it right? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#somanyright">#somanyright</a>)</span></dt>
 
 <dd>
 <p>
 We don't think that the popularity of an error makes it the truth.</p>
 </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>
 <p>
 Users are not incapable of learning.  Since &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo;
 includes &ldquo;Linux,&rdquo; they will recognize what you're talking
 about.  If you add &ldquo;(often erroneously referred to as
 &lsquo;Linux&rsquo;)&rdquo; once in a while, they will all understand.</p>
 </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.  Nonfree 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>
 
 </div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
 <!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
 <div id="footer" role="contentinfo">
 <div class="unprintable">
 
 <p>Please send general FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to
 <a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org">&lt;gnu@gnu.org&gt;</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">&lt;webmasters@gnu.org&gt;</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">
         &lt;web-translators@gnu.org&gt;</a>.</p>
 
         <p>For information on coordinating and contributing 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 contributing 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 &copy; 2001-2011, 2013-2018, 2020, 2022
 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: 2022/07/27 07:00:34 $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>
 </div>
 </div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include -->
 </body>
 </html>