"GNU/Linux" vs. "Linux"

ByteDancer writes "This is an editorial that I found over at kernel traffic which discusses in a neutral way the whole issue with the GNU/Linux naming suggestion." I wouldn't quite say its neutral, but I would say that its a good article.

Comments

Wonderful Article, theoretical question

[raistlinne]

The article was really good, I think that it is probably the best article I've seen written ont he subject.

Now, I've been thinking about something for a bit, what do you guys think:

GNU stands for GNU's not UNIX - it's an attempt at an operating system that's UNIX-like, but completely Free Software/Open Source. To foster this, RMS came up with the GPL and LGPL.

Now, many people point out that the percentage of GNU software in a normal Linux dist. is around 10% by weight (volume?). I.e. 10% of the bytes on a normal Linux dist are taken up by programs written by the FSF.

The question then arises is the only GNU software software that is written by the FSF? I wonder if it isn't. Just look at names. GNOME stands for "GNU Network Object Model Environment". Clearly the gnome people want GNOME to be part of the GNU project, even if they didn't assign copyright over to the FSF. So is the GIMP. After all, GIMP stands for "GNU Image Manipulation Program". And let's not forget the "GNU Image Manipulation Tool Kit" (Gtk).

And there's an even bigger group of software that may be part of the GNU project that isn't owned or written by the FSF - GPL'd software. The justification is this: the GNU project is an effort to create a completely Free operating system. What can releasing a program under the GPL mean but that you want it to be a part of a Free operating system (notice the cap in Free as opposed to free). The GPL has been acknowledged to be "viral" in nature (a horrible term but it will do for the moment). It is designed to keep a piece of software permanently Free, and to spread Free software if possible. So the goal of both is Free software.

Even if not entirely consciously, isn't every piece of GPL'd and LGPL'd software inherently a part of the GNU operating system? Sort of the theory that two people who have the same goals are working together, even if they've never met?

Is there anyone who's written GPL'd code who doesn't want GNU to be a reality, even if they don't believe that it will be a reality? Is there anyone who wouldn't want their GPL'd and LGPL'd code to be a part of GNU, if it became a reality?

So if this is true, and I'm not saying that it necessarily is, calling most Linux dists GNU/Linux makes some sense. After all, Linux is GPL'd. And I suspect that you'd find a pretty large portion of all the [software|bytes|any metric you want] to be from GPL'd software.

Of course, if this is true, it makes more sense to call a Linux system a GNU system, not a GNU/Linux system. That's an interesting implication.

On the issue of all the code under the bsd or x/mit license, that's a weird issue. They are working towards similar goals by releasing their source under their license, but on the other hand they've all but made their code public domain. calling the system a GNU/BSD system would satisfy almost everything but giving credit to X. GNU/X/BSD just won't work lingually.

Of course, the name might not be the right place to give credit so much as to indicate what the thing actually is. If that is the case, than GNU would probably be the most descriptive. Especially as most Linux systems are Sys V based rather than BSD in layout, regardless of what code is used.

I think that in the end, it's really a matter of what the distribution in question is about. RedHat should call their dist RedHat Linux, or RedHat GNU/Linux, or RedHat GNU, or RedHat RealOS, or anything that they damn well please. Suse, pacific Hi Tech, Stampede, Debbian, etc. can do the same. So if Debian calls their dist Debian GNU/Linux, than that's the right name for their dist.

As far as what is the right name for a system that contains largely GPL'd apps with some BSD licensed code, x/mit licensed code, public domain code, etc. is a bit up in the air. Calling a theoretical dist something like what I just described a Linux system seems an even worse name than GNU or BSD, Linux is just the kernel. But then again language is fluid and it now means the whole thing. If Linux eventually comes to mean nearly the same thing as GNU, then it doesn't really matter much from the GNU point of view. The X people feel fine about their work being subsumed into anyone else's (see their license) as do the BSD people (see their license), so GNU, GNU/Linux, or Linux seem the best candidates.

Or then again, we could go with something completely different and just call it Fred. Or maybe Foo. That's more in line with the hacker culture.

Note: I still don't plan to call my system GNU/Linux. I plan to call it Linux, and explain to everyone that I meet the idea of Free Software/Open Source, and write as many GPL'd apps as I can.