I initially wrote most of this as a response to a comment on Groklaw, where PJ is busily carrying water to assist in running down an active member of the open source community as a "traitor to the free software movement". The comment began by stating that the FSF had never "ordered" anyone to use the terminology "GNU/Linux" (as if they could), and continued,
They [i.e. the FSF] wanted you to call the whole OS GNU/Linux instead of just "Linux", because the whole OS is really much more than the kernel. Linus contribution is important, but a kernel wouldn't do much without a shell and all the basic things GNU brings. Linux would also really, really suck if it wasn't for GNU's ideas , including the GPL.
Unfortunately, the fact is that Mr. Stallman has refused to speak with people who used "Linux" to refer to the OS as a whole or "open source" for their style of development. RMS has said repeatedly that he views these "issues" as being "very important". Evidently he felt it was important enough to boot Miguel de Icaza off the FSF board when Miguel refused to sign up for a campaign to promote the use of "GNU/Linux" more widely.
This stance is problematic in a few dimensions. First, it gives every possible appearance of being entirely an ego-driven thing on Stallman's part: he clearly feels Linus is getting credit that he richly deserves and is being unfairly denied. If you accept his justification for calling it "GNU/Linux", then you'd really have to call it "X/GNU/Linux", since the X portion was substantially larger in the initial releases—in fact, this is the terminology that Yggdrasil, the first live CD distro used. Today, you'd have to call it something like "GNOME/GTK/Apache/X/GNU/.../Linux" or "KDE/Qt/Apache/X/GNU/.../Linux". It was never simply "GNU/Linux", and if one thinks one hasn't gotten one's fair share of credit, it looks a little petulant to consistently also deny credit to other projects (e.g. X) which contributed significantly to the overall "design". Second, the whole "terminology war" makes most people in the community roll their eyes, and leaves people outside the community, to the extent that they become aware of it, wondering what on earth we're bickering with one another over. Given the constant whining cries of "Can't we talk about code?" whenever the subject of some sexist comment or presentation comes up, the ironclad insistence on who got how much credit for what when seems especially odd. Third, the approach that the FSF takes—"Lalalalala-It's-Not-Linux-It's-GNU/Linux-lalalalalala"—is as silly, and as ultimately futile, as l'Académie Française attempting to browbeat people into calling a Walkman "un balladeur" or an email "un courriel". Language is not something you gert to dictate, it has a life of its own. Finally, and most importantly, it's a complete distraction from the actual issues. Average non-technical folks—i.e. people who have never gone anywhere near "a shell" and shouldn't have to—if they have even heard of "the most widely used open source operating system" (I call it that to recognize the person who made all of this possible by providing a working kernel, and who refers to what he does as "open source" software, not "free" software) call it "Linux". That is not an issue. Most people haven't even heard of it. That's an issue. The mainstream media, when it talks about it—which is does a lot less than it talks about the proprietary OS's—calls it "Linux". That is not an issue. The fact the it gets relatively little press: that's an issue. Even the major distros, Red Hat, SuSE, Ubuntu, and so on, call it "Linux". That is not an issue. So, what do we want here? Do we want the average person to be more aware of the software we work on? Or do we want to spend time arguing with each other over what they should call it if they ever get to hear about it, which they won't, because we're too busy bickering with one another...? When the media writes about open source software, do we want them writing articles about us wrangling over what to call it? Or would we prefer them writing articles about the software itself? "GNU/Linux" is a quibble, a silly thing to insist on. If the FSF feels this is "very important", maybe they should knock off their "social activism" for a little bit, stop browbeating Microsoft and people in the community who happen not to agree with every single one of the FSF's positions for a few months, and devote some time to finishing up the HURD. Then, they can have a nice, pure, "free" operating system which they can declare that all must use or be considered "traitors". "Good morning, Free Software Foundation. Can I help you?" "Yes, I'm calling from the USA Today, and we're doing a special section on Linux and wondered if you'd be interested in contributing." "It's not Linux, it's GNU/Linux." "What?" "There's no such operating system as 'Linux'. There's only 'GNU/Linux'. You should call it that in recognition of..." "Um, wait, sorry... Look, I'm pretty sure there is such a thing as Linux, I have a few different copies of it right here. Anyway, we were interested in doing a story on Linux, as I said. That's fine, I'm on a deadline, there are plenty of places that do Linux I can call, thanks anyway!" ::click::
Linux, the kernel developed and distributed by Linus Torvalds et al, contains non-Free Software, i.e., software that does not respect your essential freedoms, and it induces you to install additional non-Free Software that it doesn't contain.
[I applaud this move as providing a neat solution which should be satisfactory, I believe, to all concerned. All distros which use the Linux kernel are instances of an open source operating system which we will continue to refer to as "Linux". All distros which use, instead, the Linux-Libre kernel, are instances of a free operating system called "GNU/Linux-Libre", or whatever the six or eight of you who will be using it think best. Enjoy! Wow, that was easier to resolve than I'd anticipated!]
Stay tuned for our next exciting episode! Terminology Wars II: "Free" as in "Open Source"
