Re: forwarded message from Richard Stallman

[Robert Roeser <roeser engr orst edu>]

I really don't understand the whole deal behind the GNU/Linux naming.
I don't think Linus Torvalds named Linux GNU/Linux. Richard Stallman seems
to be bent on the "his way is right" and everyone else is wrong. Im kinda
sick of hearing why I should call Linux GNU/Linux. Maybe we should start
calling GNOME, Redhat/GNOME because they have funded alot of the
GNOME development, or how about calling KDE Troll/KDE because they got
there tool kit from Troll? Maybe we should also through a GNU in front of
KDE because the may have used Emacs at one time, or compiled it with GCC.
We need to remember that Troll is not free so the name should
probaly be GNU(Except the Troll part)/Troll(Which isn't GNU)/KDE.

When someone writes a program using Microsoft Visual Studio does Microsoft
require that the person call there new product Micrsoft/Foo. No, they let
the person call it what ever they want. And this is even from Microsoft
that has shitty software, and a history of maclious business practices. 
But now the Free Software Foundation, Free as in FREEDOM, wants people
to call a program that is particularly successful GNU/Linux. Let the
author of the program call it what he wants. If he wants to acknowledge
the free software foundation then let him, feel flattered, but don't try
to force people, or request, or play about there morals to call it
what you want, thats not free thinking at all.

Robert Roeser
--Let the flamming began and forgive my bad spelling--

On Wed, 22 Dec 1999, Richard Stallman wrote:

>     Certainly Richard Stallman and the rest of the contributors of the GNU
>     Project deserve credit for their enormous work, but I imagine at this
>     point it's probably a little too late in the game for a change of this
>     magnitude.
> 
> Many people have told me that it is "impossible to change" this, and
> advised me to give up.  I didn't listen, and that's good, because this
> campaign is succeeding somewhat--some people now do say "GNU/Linux".
> Recently this term has appeared in the New York Times and the Boston
> Globe.  I don't expect to convince *everyone* to use the term, but
> each person who does so helps to clear up the usual confusion.
> 
> If you recognize that the name GNU/Linux is more appropriate, you too
> can use it.  No one can stop you.
> 
>      Regardless, most of us who've been in this business any time
>     have been well aware that GNU formed a major portion of Linux 
> 
> We have not developed any part of Linux.  We developed the larger GNU
> operating system, in which Linux is typically used.
> 
>      It's sad now that anyone would make an effort to add further
>     dividing lines
> 
> I hope this isn't meant to apply to me.  If it is, it is a
> misunderstanding.  I am asking people to give the GNU Project credit
> for developing the GNU operating system, by mentioning "GNU" in the
> system's name.  There's no dividing line here.
> 
>     This apparent drive toward demanding credit brings
>     that aspiration into question and certainly demeans any air of
>     selflessness.
> 
> I can see how it might look that way, if you're assuming that the
> issue is just about ego.  If only ego were at stake, I would agree that
> the issue was not very important.
> 
> But something much more important is at stake: whether the GNU Project
> can spread the idealistic philosophy which brought the GNU/Linux
> system into existene in the first place.
> 
> The name of Linux has become associated with the apolitical philosophy
> of Linus and the Open Source movement.  Most fans of the GNU/Linux
> system don't know that our idealism created the system they love.  We
> want them to know this, so that they won't dismiss our idealism as
> "impracticable".  We have to make sure they know where the system
> really came from.
> 
>     I think it's a foolish to assume that any of us out here
>     didn't realize how great Richard's group's contribution really was.
> 
> Based on my experience, I would bet that many people on these lists
> think they know, but what they heard is just part of it.  Probably
> many think that "GNU developed tools that are used in Linux."  That's
> quite an understatement.
> 
> But even if everyone on these lists does know the situation, most
> reporters don't.  Nowadays, when they write stories about the GNU
> system, they usually call it "Linux", they usually don't know we had
> anything to do with it, and they usually don't even talk to us.
> 
>     I also think the Linux industry making an effort to credit the GNU
>     Project would be well spent as well as perhaps even companies such as
> 
> My experience has been that consistently using the name "GNU/Linux"
> informs people better than ten minutes of detailed explanation.
> 
> A few years ago, I talked with people about their efforts to explain
> the situation without using that term, and what results they got.  The
> message was going in one ear and out the other.
> 
> Looking at what was happening, I concluded that the reason for this
> was that calling the system "Linux" implies that anything named "GNU"
> could only have had a secondary role in developing the system.  Once
> people form that conceptual structure, if you try to tell them that
> the system's principal developer was the GNU Project, you are trying
> to change the structure.  They tend to assume you don't really mean
> what you're saying, because the truth just "couldn't be true".
> 
>     However I do object to a "demand" as opposed to a request 
> 
> I don't know of anyone who is trying to force you to write
> "GNU/Linux", so that is just a hypothetical issue.  The real issue is
> that writing GNU/Linux is the right thing to do.
> 
> Please see http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html for more
> explanation.
> 
> 
> -- 
>         FAQ: Frequently-Asked Questions at http://www.gnome.org/gnomefaq
>          To unsubscribe: mail gnome-list-request@gnome.org with 
>                        "unsubscribe" as the Subject.
> 
>