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 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.
But does this 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 which has developed around
GNU/Linux is not secure;
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:
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 "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 becomes used increasingly 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 non-free software to GNU/Linux
in the name of convenience and power. All the major commercial distribution
developers do this. Only Red Hat offers an all-free CD product, and no stores
carry it; the other companies don't even produce such a thing. Most companies
do not clearly identify the non-free packages in their distributions; many even
develop non-free software and add it to the system.
People justify adding non-free software in the name of the "popularity
of Linux"--in effect, valuing popularity above freedom. Sometimes
this is openly admitted. For instance, Wired Magazine says 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".
(http://www.zdnet.com/filters/printerfriendly/0,6061,2552025-2,00.html.)
Adding non-free 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 non-free software. But at the same time, it implicitly encourages
the community to accept non-free software as a good thing, and forget the goal
of freedom. It is no use driving faster if you can't stay on the road.
When the non-free "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 non-free 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. The Motif problem is still not entirely
solved, since LessTif needs some polishing (please volunteer!). Sun's
non-free Java implementation is now having a similar effect.
If our community keeps moving in this direction, it could redirect the future
of GNU/Linux into a
mosaic of free and non-free 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 non-free 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 which threaten
to make this harder: laws that prohibit free software. As software
patents mount up (see petition.eurolinux.org, and sign it!), 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 non-free 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 non-free software; the companies that
package "Linux" add non-free software to the system; other companies
"support Linux" with non-free applications; 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.
Ps. For an explanation of the history of the GNU/Linux
system as it relates to the question of naming, see http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html.
Please send FSF & GNU inquiries & questions to gnu@gnu.org.
There are also other ways
to contact the FSF.
Please send comments on these web pages to
webmasters@gnu.org,
send other questions to
gnu@gnu.org.
Copyright 2000 Richard Stallman
Verbatim copying and redistribution of this entire article are permitted
in any medium provided this notice and the copyright notice are preserved.
The Mstation publication of this page is courtesy of Richard Stallman.
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.
GNU's home page.
Back to Mstation front page Updated:
6 Dec 2000 chsong