GNU/Linux naming controversy

From ArticleWorld

GNU/Linux naming controversy is an ongoing debate about how Linux distributions should be referred to. The name GNU/Linux is the one promoted by Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation, while many developers of the Linux kernel actually prefer to say "Linux", without implying any involvement of the FSF. In fact, most distributions choose this name (which is why we have SuSE Linux and not SuSE GNU/Linux), with the only major exception being Debian.GNU/Linux.

The controversy was especially influential when the Free Software movement was separating its principles from that of the Open Source movement. It came to emphasize how the Open Source movement is focused on providing quality software, rather than on the actual freedom of speech involved in software development. On the other hand, the Free Software foundation believes that it is important to keep the name "GNU/Linux" so that the credit for much of the software in a Linux distribution goes where it should.

Pro GNU/Linux

The idea of "GNU/Linux" came up in the early 1990s. At the moment, the GNU project, although starting off enthusiastically, was stuck because of a major component of its puzzle, the GNU operating system. GNU/Hurd proved to be more difficult than expected, and, in fact, GNU/Hurd is still not fully functional at the time of writing, more than 15 years after it was started. The Linux kernel fit in the gap.

This is the major reason why the GNU/Linux partisans consider they are right. The Linux kernel took GNU Hurd's place in the game, and most of the usual base tools that come with a Linux distribution are actually GPL-licensed. The Linux kernel itself is licensed as GPL, although FSF partisans do not consider this to be a major reason for the "GNU/Linux term". Instead, FSF partisans consider that the name "GNU/Linux", besides expressing the importance of GNU software itself, is also a credit given to the idealism that played an important role in the development. Richard Stallman explains: ...if you were going to pick a name for the system based on who wrote the programs in the system, the most appropriate single choice would be GNU. But we don't think that is the right way to consider the question. The GNU Project was not, is not, a project to develop specific software packages. [...] Many people have made major contributions to the free software in the system, and they all deserve credit. But the reason it is an integrated system and not just a collection of useful programs is because the GNU Project set out to make it one. We made a list of the programs needed to make a complete free system, and we systematically wrote, or found people to write, everything on the list. (Richard M. Stallman, "Linux and the GNU Project").

Against "GNU/Linux"

Although Linus Torvalds himself agrees that much code is under GPL, and the GNU project plays a crucial role in the Linux development, he is one of those who considers that the appropriate term is Linux. In the Revolution OS documentary, Torvalds explained that he believes it is correct if someones makes a GNU distribution of Linux and names it GNU/Linux. At the same time, he considers that it is just as correct if someone makes a Linux distribution and calls it some other way, like Red Hat Linux. He considered that calling Linux in general "GNU Linux" [I think] is just ridiculous..

This flamed up spirits, as many began to consider that Stallman's opinion on "GNU/Linux" is something he does just because he believes he should take more credit.

Many developers of non-GNU software commonly found in Linux distributions also consider it is wrong to use the name "GNU/Linux", because it suggests that the GNU components are more important than others. However, major components, like the X Window System, are not licensed under GPL. And Jim Gettys, one of the most important people in the X Window project, considered that he doesn't '...hear a clamor of support that GNU is more essential than many of the other components; can't take a wheel away, and end up with a functional vehicle, or an engine, or the seats. I recommend you be happy we have a bus. ( April 5 1999, on the linux-kernel mailing list).

In fact, in some cases, one can build a complete Linux system without using any other GNU components but the Linux kernel itself. For example, one can use a barebone kernel, with uClibc and BusyBox instead of the usual GNU tools. However, even the FSF agrees that it is incorrect to name such a distribution "GNU/Linux".