[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/gnu gnu-linux-faq.ko.html gnu-linux-faq.pl....
|
From: |
GNUN |
|
Subject: |
www/gnu gnu-linux-faq.ko.html gnu-linux-faq.pl.... |
|
Date: |
Mon, 17 Oct 2016 16:59:53 +0000 (UTC) |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: GNUN <gnun> 16/10/17 16:59:53
Modified files:
gnu : gnu-linux-faq.ko.html gnu-linux-faq.pl.html
gnu-linux-faq.uk.html
gnu/po : gnu-linux-faq.pl-diff.html
Added files:
gnu/po : gnu-linux-faq.ko-diff.html
gnu-linux-faq.uk-diff.html
Log message:
Automatic update by GNUnited Nations.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.ko.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.10&r2=1.11
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.pl.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.61&r2=1.62
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.uk.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.3&r2=1.4
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/gnu/po/gnu-linux-faq.pl-diff.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.5&r2=1.6
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/gnu/po/gnu-linux-faq.ko-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/gnu/po/gnu-linux-faq.uk-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
Patches:
Index: gnu-linux-faq.ko.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.ko.html,v
retrieving revision 1.10
retrieving revision 1.11
diff -u -b -r1.10 -r1.11
--- gnu-linux-faq.ko.html 23 May 2016 05:59:55 -0000 1.10
+++ gnu-linux-faq.ko.html 17 Oct 2016 16:59:52 -0000 1.11
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/gnu/po/gnu-linux-faq.ko.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/gnu/po/gnu-linux-faq.ko.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/gnu/po/gnu-linux-faq.ko-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2016-08-18" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.ko.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
@@ -8,6 +13,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/gnu/po/gnu-linux-faq.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.ko.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.ko.html" -->
<h2>리차ë ì¤í¨ë°ì´ ìì±í GNU/Linux FAQ</h2>
<div class="announcement">
@@ -1208,7 +1214,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
ìµì¢
ìì ì¼:
-$Date: 2016/05/23 05:59:55 $
+$Date: 2016/10/17 16:59:52 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: gnu-linux-faq.pl.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.pl.html,v
retrieving revision 1.61
retrieving revision 1.62
diff -u -b -r1.61 -r1.62
--- gnu-linux-faq.pl.html 17 Feb 2016 05:33:09 -0000 1.61
+++ gnu-linux-faq.pl.html 17 Oct 2016 16:59:53 -0000 1.62
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/gnu/po/gnu-linux-faq.pl.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/gnu/po/gnu-linux-faq.pl.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/gnu/po/gnu-linux-faq.pl-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2016-08-18" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.pl.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
@@ -8,6 +13,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/gnu/po/gnu-linux-faq.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.pl.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.pl.html" -->
<h2>GNU Linux FAQ – Richard Stallman</h2>
<div class="announcement">
@@ -1674,7 +1680,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Aktualizowane:
-$Date: 2016/02/17 05:33:09 $
+$Date: 2016/10/17 16:59:53 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: gnu-linux-faq.uk.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.uk.html,v
retrieving revision 1.3
retrieving revision 1.4
diff -u -b -r1.3 -r1.4
--- gnu-linux-faq.uk.html 25 Dec 2015 15:52:01 -0000 1.3
+++ gnu-linux-faq.uk.html 17 Oct 2016 16:59:53 -0000 1.4
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/gnu/po/gnu-linux-faq.uk.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/gnu/po/gnu-linux-faq.uk.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/gnu/po/gnu-linux-faq.uk-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2016-08-18" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.uk.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
@@ -8,6 +13,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/gnu/po/gnu-linux-faq.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.uk.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.uk.html" -->
<h2>Ð ÑÑаÑд СÑолмен. ЧÐРпÑо GNU/Linux</h2>
<div class="announcement">
@@ -1578,7 +1584,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Ðновлено:
-$Date: 2015/12/25 15:52:01 $
+$Date: 2016/10/17 16:59:53 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: po/gnu-linux-faq.pl-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/gnu/po/gnu-linux-faq.pl-diff.html,v
retrieving revision 1.5
retrieving revision 1.6
diff -u -b -r1.5 -r1.6
--- po/gnu-linux-faq.pl-diff.html 12 Feb 2016 10:08:20 -0000 1.5
+++ po/gnu-linux-faq.pl-diff.html 17 Oct 2016 16:59:53 -0000 1.6
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@
</style></head>
<body><pre>
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
-<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: <span
class="removed"><del><strong>1.77</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>1.79</em></ins></span> -->
<title>GNU/Linux FAQ
- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
<!--#include virtual="/gnu/po/gnu-linux-faq.translist" -->
@@ -96,7 +96,10 @@
“GNU/Linux” is that it is too long. How about
recommending a shorter name?</a></li>
-<li><a href="#long2" id="TOClong2">The problem with
+<li><a <span class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#long1"
id="TOClong1">How about calling the system
+ “GliNUx” (instead of
“GNU/Linux”)?</a></li>
+
+<li><a</em></ins></span> href="#long2" id="TOClong2">The problem
with
“GNU/Linux” is that it is too long. Why should
I go to the trouble of saying “GNU/”?</a></li>
@@ -149,7 +152,7 @@
<li><a href="#distronames1" id="TOCdistronames1">My distro's
official
name is “Foobar Linux”; isn't it wrong to call the
- distro anything but “Linux”?</a></li>
+ distro anything but <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“Linux”?</a></li></strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>“Foobar
Linux”?</a></li></em></ins></span>
<li><a href="#companies" id="TOCcompanies">Wouldn't it be more
effective to ask companies such as Mandrake, Red Hat and IBM to
@@ -652,7 +655,22 @@
given below</a>.</p>
</dd>
-<dt id="long2">The problem with “GNU/Linux” is that it is
too long.
+<dt <span class="inserted"><ins><em>id="long1">How about calling the
system
+ “GliNUx” (instead of “GNU/Linux”)?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#long1">#long1</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>The name “GNU” does not visibly appear in
+“Glinux,” so most people would not notice it is there.
+Even if it is capitalized as “GliNUx,” most people would
+not realize that it contains a reference to GNU.</p>
+
+<p>It would be comparable to writing “GNU/Linux,” but
+putting “GNU/” in print so small that most people could
+not read it.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt</em></ins></span> id="long2">The problem with
“GNU/Linux” is that it is too long.
Why should I go to the trouble of saying “GNU/”?
<span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#long2">#long2</a>)</span></dt>
@@ -873,12 +891,16 @@
<dt id="distronames1">My distro's official name is “Foobar
Linux”; isn't it wrong to call the distro
- anything but “Linux”? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#distronames1">#distronames1</a>)</span></dt>
+ anything but <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“Linux”?</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“Foobar Linux”?</em></ins></span>
<span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#distronames1">#distronames1</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><dd><p>If it's allowed for them
to change</strong></del></span>
-<dd><p>If it's allowed for them to change “GNU” to
-“Foobar Linux”, it's allowed for you to change it back and
-call it “Foobar GNU/Linux”. This is what you ought to do,
-to avoid their error.</p></dd>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><dd><p>When they spread
misinformation by changing</em></ins></span> “GNU”
+to <span class="inserted"><ins><em>“Linux”, and call their version
of it</em></ins></span> “Foobar
+Linux”, it's <span
class="removed"><del><strong>allowed</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>proper</em></ins></span> for you to <span
class="removed"><del><strong>change it back and
+call</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>correct the
misinformation by
+calling</em></ins></span> it “Foobar <span
class="removed"><del><strong>GNU/Linux”. This is what you ought to do,
+to avoid their error.</p></dd></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>GNU/Linux”.</p></dd></em></ins></span>
<dt id="companies">Wouldn't it be more
effective to ask companies such as Mandrake, Red Hat and IBM to
@@ -1416,7 +1438,7 @@
credit we deserve.
<p>
-Please note that there are at least <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="/philosophy/bsd.html"></strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>href="/licenses/bsd.html"></em></ins></span>
+Please note that there are at least <a href="/licenses/bsd.html">
two different BSD licenses</a>. For clarity's sake, please don't use
the term “BSD license” without specifying which one.</p>
</dd>
@@ -1528,7 +1550,7 @@
There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
-<p>Copyright © 2001, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015
+<p>Copyright © 2001, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014,
<span class="removed"><del><strong>2015</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2015, 2016</em></ins></span>
Free Software Foundation, Inc.</p>
<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
@@ -1539,7 +1561,7 @@
<p class="unprintable">Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2016/02/12 10:08:20 $
+$Date: 2016/10/17 16:59:53 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
Index: po/gnu-linux-faq.ko-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/gnu-linux-faq.ko-diff.html
diff -N po/gnu-linux-faq.ko-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/gnu-linux-faq.ko-diff.html 17 Oct 2016 16:59:53 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,1571 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+ "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
+<!-- Generated by GNUN -->
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en" lang="en">
+<head>
+<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
+<title>/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html-diff</title>
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+</style></head>
+<body><pre>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: <span
class="removed"><del><strong>1.77</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>1.79</em></ins></span> -->
+<title>GNU/Linux FAQ
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+<!--#include virtual="/gnu/po/gnu-linux-faq.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>GNU/Linux FAQ by Richard Stallman</h2>
+
+<div class="announcement">
+ <blockquote><p>To learn more about this issue, you can also read
+our page on <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">Linux and the GNU
Project</a>, our
+ page on <a href="/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html">Why GNU/Linux?</a>
+and our page on <a href="/gnu/gnu-users-never-heard-of-gnu.html">GNU
+Users Who Have Never Heard of GNU</a>.</p></blockquote>
+</div>
+
+<p>
+When people see that we use and recommend the name GNU/Linux for a
+system that many others call just “Linux”, they ask many questions.
+Here are common questions, and our answers.</p>
+
+<ul>
+
+<li><a href="#why" id="TOCwhy">Why do you call it GNU/Linux and
not Linux?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#whycare" id="TOCwhycare">Why is the name
important?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#howerror" id="TOChowerror">How did it come about
that most
+ people call the system “Linux”?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#always" id="TOCalways">Should we always say
+“GNU/Linux” instead of “Linux”?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#linuxalone" id="TOClinuxalone">Would Linux have
achieved
+ the same success if there had been no GNU?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#divide" id="TOCdivide">Wouldn't it be better for the
+ community if you did not divide people with this
request?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#freespeech" id="TOCfreespeech">Doesn't the GNU
project
+ support an individual's free speech rights to call the system by
+ any name that individual chooses?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#everyoneknows" id="TOCeveryoneknows">Since everyone
+ knows the role of GNU in developing the system, doesn't the
+ “GNU/” in the name go without saying?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#everyoneknows2" id="TOCeveryoneknows2">Since I know
the role of
+ GNU in this system, why does it matter what name I
use?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#windows" id="TOCwindows">Isn't shortening
+ “GNU/Linux” to “Linux” just like
+ shortening “Microsoft Windows” to
+ “Windows”?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#tools" id="TOCtools">Isn't GNU a collection of
programming
+ tools that were included in Linux?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#osvskernel" id="TOCosvskernel">What is the
difference between an operating
+ system and a kernel?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#house" id="TOChouse">The kernel of a system is like
the foundation
+ of a house. How can a house be almost complete when it doesn't have a
+ foundation?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#brain" id="TOCbrain">Isn't the kernel the brain of
the
+ system?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#kernelmost" id="TOCkernelmost">Isn't writing the
kernel
+ most of the work in an operating system?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#notinstallable" id="TOCnotinstallable">How can GNU
be an
+ operating system, if I can't get something called “GNU”
+ and install it?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#afterkernel" id="TOCafterkernel">We're calling the
whole
+ system after the kernel, Linux. Isn't it normal to name an
+ operating system after a kernel?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#feel" id="TOCfeel">Can another system have “the
+ feel of Linux”?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#long" id="TOClong">The problem with
+ “GNU/Linux” is that it is too long. How about
+ recommending a shorter name?</a></li>
+
+<li><a <span class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#long1"
id="TOClong1">How about calling the system
+ “GliNUx” (instead of
“GNU/Linux”)?</a></li>
+
+<li><a</em></ins></span> href="#long2" id="TOClong2">The problem
with
+ “GNU/Linux” is that it is too long. Why should
+ I go to the trouble of saying “GNU/”?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#long3" id="TOClong3">Unfortunately,
+ “GNU/Linux” is five syllables. People won't use such a
+ long term. Shouldn't you find a shorter one?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#justgnu" id="TOCjustgnu">Since Linux is a secondary
+ contribution, would it be false to the facts to call the system
+ simply “GNU”?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#trademarkfee" id="TOCtrademarkfee">I would have to
pay a
+ fee if I use “Linux” in the name of a product, and
+ that would also apply if I say “GNU/Linux”. Is it
+ wrong if I use “GNU” without “Linux”, to
+ save the fee?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#many" id="TOCmany">Many other projects contributed
to the
+ system as it is today; it includes TeX, X11, Apache, Perl, and many
+ more programs. Don't your arguments imply we have to give them
+ credit too? (But that would lead to a name so long it is
+ absurd.)</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#others" id="TOCothers">Many other projects
contributed to
+ the system as it is today, but they don't insist on calling it
+ XYZ/Linux. Why should we treat GNU specially?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#allsmall" id="TOCallsmall">GNU is a small fraction
of the system
+ nowadays, so why should we mention it?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#manycompanies" id="TOCmanycompanies">Many companies
+ contributed to the system as it is today; doesn't that mean
+ we ought to call it GNU/Red Hat/Novell/Linux?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#whyslash" id="TOCwhyslash">Why do you write
+ “GNU/Linux” instead of “GNU
+ Linux”?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#whyorder" id="TOCwhyorder">Why
“GNU/Linux”
+rather than “Linux/GNU”?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#distronames0" id="TOCdistronames0">My distro's
developers call it
+ “Foobar Linux”, but that doesn't say anything about
+ what the system consists of. Why shouldn't they call it whatever
+ they like?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#distronames" id="TOCdistronames">My distro is called
+ “Foobar Linux”; doesn't that show it's really
+ Linux?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#distronames1" id="TOCdistronames1">My distro's
official
+ name is “Foobar Linux”; isn't it wrong to call the
+ distro anything but <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“Linux”?</a></li></strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>“Foobar
Linux”?</a></li></em></ins></span>
+
+<li><a href="#companies" id="TOCcompanies">Wouldn't it be more
+ effective to ask companies such as Mandrake, Red Hat and IBM to
+ call their distributions “GNU/Linux” rather than
+ asking individuals?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#reserve" id="TOCreserve">Wouldn't it be better to
+ reserve the name “GNU/Linux” for distributions that
+ are purely free software? After all, that is the ideal of
+ GNU.</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#gnudist" id="TOCgnudist">Why not make a GNU
distribution of
+ Linux (sic) and call that GNU/Linux?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#linuxgnu" id="TOClinuxgnu">Why not just say
“Linux
+ is the GNU kernel” and release some existing version of
+ GNU/Linux under the name “GNU”?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#condemn" id="TOCcondemn">Did the GNU Project condemn
and
+ oppose use of Linux in the early days?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#wait" id="TOCwait">Why did you wait so long before
+ asking people to use the name GNU/Linux?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#allgpled" id="TOCallgpled">Should the GNU/[name]
convention
+ be applied to all programs that are GPL'ed?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#unix" id="TOCunix">Since much of GNU comes from Unix,
+ shouldn't GNU give credit to Unix by using “Unix” in
+ its name?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#bsd" id="TOCbsd">Should we say “GNU/BSD”
+too?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#othersys" id="TOCothersys">If I install the GNU
tools on
+ Windows, does that mean I am running a GNU/Windows
system?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#justlinux" id="TOCjustlinux">Can't Linux be used
without
+GNU?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#howmuch" id="TOChowmuch">How much of the GNU system
+is needed for the system to be GNU/Linux?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#linuxsyswithoutgnu" id="TOClinuxsyswithoutgnu">Are
there complete Linux systems [sic] without GNU?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#helplinus" id="TOChelplinus">Why not call the system
+ “Linux” anyway, and strengthen Linus Torvalds' role as
+ posterboy for our community?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#claimlinux" id="TOCclaimlinux">Isn't it wrong for us
to label Linus
+ Torvalds' work as GNU?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#linusagreed" id="TOClinusagreed">Does Linus Torvalds
+ agree that Linux is just the kernel?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#finishhurd" id="TOCfinishhurd">Why not finish
+ the GNU Hurd kernel, release the GNU system as a whole,
+ and forget the question of what to call GNU/Linux?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#lost" id="TOClost">The battle is already
+ lost—society has made its decision and we can't change it,
+ so why even think about it?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#whatgood" id="TOCwhatgood">Society has made its
decision
+ and we can't change it, so what good does it do if I say
+ “GNU/Linux”?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#explain" id="TOCexplain">Wouldn't it be better to
call
+ the system “Linux” and teach people its real origin
+ with a ten-minute explanation?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#treatment" id="TOCtreatment">Some people laugh at
you when
+ you ask them to call the system GNU/Linux. Why do you subject yourself
+ to this treatment?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#alienate" id="TOCalienate">Some people condemn you
when you
+ ask them to call the system GNU/Linux. Don't you lose by
+ alienating them?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#rename" id="TOCrename">Whatever you contributed,
+ is it legitimate to rename the operating system?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#force">Isn't it wrong to force people to call
+ the system “GNU/Linux”?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#whynotsue">Why not sue people who call
+ the whole system “Linux”?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#BSDlicense" id="TOCBSDlicense">Since you objected to
the original
+ BSD license's advertising requirement to give credit to the University of
+ California, isn't it hypocritical to demand credit for the GNU
project?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#require" id="TOCrequire">Shouldn't you put something
in
+ the GNU GPL to require people to call the system
+ “GNU”?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#deserve" id="TOCdeserve">Since you failed to put
+ something in the GNU GPL to require people to call the system
+ “GNU”, you deserve what happened; why are you
+ complaining now?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#contradict" id="TOCcontradict">Wouldn't you be
better off
+ not contradicting what so many people believe?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#somanyright" id="TOCsomanyright">Since many people
call it
+ “Linux”, doesn't that make it right?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#knownname" id="TOCknownname">Isn't it better to call
the
+ system by the name most users already know?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#winning" id="TOCwinning">Many people care about
what's convenient or
+ who's winning, not about arguments of right or wrong. Couldn't you
+ get more of their support by a different road?</a></li>
+
+</ul>
+
+<dl>
+
+<dt id="why">Why do you call it GNU/Linux and not
+ Linux? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#why">#why</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>Most operating system distributions based on Linux as kernel are
+basically modified versions of the GNU operating system. We began
+developing GNU in 1984, years before Linus Torvalds started to write
+his kernel. Our goal was to develop a complete free operating system.
+Of course, we did not develop all the parts ourselves—but we led the way.
+We developed most of the central components, forming the largest single
+contribution to the whole system. The basic vision was ours too.
+<p>
+In fairness, we ought to get at least equal mention.</p>
+
+<p>See <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">Linux and the GNU
System</a>
+and <a href="/gnu/gnu-users-never-heard-of-gnu.html">GNU Users Who Have
+Never Heard of GNU</a> for more explanation, and <a
+href="/gnu/the-gnu-project.html">The GNU Project</a> for the
+history.</p> </dd>
+
+<dt id="whycare">Why is the name
+ important? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#whycare">#whycare</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>Although the developers of Linux, the kernel, are contributing to
+the free software community, many of them do not care about freedom.
+People who think the whole system is Linux tend to get confused and
+assign to those developers a role in the history of our community
+which they did not actually play. Then they give inordinate weight to
+those developers' views.
+<p>
+Calling the system GNU/Linux recognizes the role that our idealism
+played in building our community, and
+<a href="/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html">helps the public recognize the
+practical importance of these ideals</a>.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="howerror">How did it come about that most
+ people call the system “Linux”? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#howerror">#howerror</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>Calling the system “Linux” is a confusion that has
spread faster
+than the corrective information.
+<p>
+The people who combined Linux with the GNU system were not aware that
+that's what their activity amounted to. They focused their attention
+on the piece that was Linux and did not realize that more of the
+combination was GNU. They started calling it “Linux” even though
that
+name did not fit what they had. It took a few years for us to realize
+what a problem this was and ask people to correct the practice. By
+that time, the confusion had a big head start.</p>
+<p>
+Most of the people who call the system “Linux” have never heard why
+that's not the right thing. They saw others using that name and
+assume it must be right. The name “Linux” also spreads a false
+picture of the system's origin, because people tend to suppose that
+the system's history was such as to fit that name. For
+instance, they often believe its development was started by Linus
+Torvalds in 1991. This false picture tends to reinforce the idea
+that the system should be called “Linux”.</p>
+<p>
+Many of the questions in this file represent people's attempts to
+justify the name they are accustomed to using.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="always">Should we always say
+ “GNU/Linux” instead of “Linux”? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#always">#always</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd>
+Not always—only when you're talking about the whole system. When
+you're referring specifically to the kernel, you should call it
+“Linux”, the name its developer chose.
+<p>
+When people call the whole system “Linux”, as a consequence
+they call the whole system by the same name as the kernel.
+This causes many kinds of confusion, because only experts can tell
+whether a statement is about the kernel or the whole system.
+By calling the whole system “GNU/Linux”, and calling the kernel
+“Linux”, you avoid the ambiguity.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="linuxalone">Would Linux have
+ achieved the same success if there had been no
+ GNU? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#linuxalone">#linuxalone</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+In that alternative world, there would be nothing today like the
+GNU/Linux system, and probably no free operating system at all. No
+one attempted to develop a free operating system in the 1980s except
+the GNU Project and (later) Berkeley CSRG, which had been specifically
+asked by the GNU Project to start freeing its code.
+<p>
+Linus Torvalds was partly influenced by a speech about GNU in Finland
+in 1990. It's possible that even without this influence he might have
+written a Unix-like kernel, but it probably would not have been free
+software. Linux became free in 1992 when Linus rereleased it under
+the GNU GPL. (See the release notes for version 0.12.)</p>
+<p>
+Even if Torvalds had released Linux under some other free software
+license, a free kernel alone would not have made much difference to
+the world. The significance of Linux came from fitting into a larger
+framework, a complete free operating system: GNU/Linux.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="divide">Wouldn't it be better for the
+ community if you did not divide people with this request? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#divide">#divide</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+When we ask people to say “GNU/Linux”, we are not dividing people.
We
+are asking them to give the GNU Project credit for the GNU operating
+system. This does not criticize anyone or push anyone away.
+<p>
+However, there are people who do not like our saying this. Sometimes
+those people push us away in response. On occasion they are so rude
+that one wonders if they are intentionally trying to intimidate us
+into silence. It doesn't silence us, but it does tend to divide the
+community, so we hope you can convince them to stop.</p>
+<p>
+However, this is only a secondary cause of division in our community.
+The largest division in the community is between people who appreciate
+free software as a social and ethical issue and consider proprietary
+software a social problem (supporters of the free software movement),
+and those who cite only practical benefits and present free software
+only as an efficient development model (the open source movement).</p>
+<p>
+This disagreement is not just a matter of names—it is a matter
+of differing basic values. It is essential for the community to see
+and think about this disagreement. The names “free
+software” and “open source” are the banners of the
+two positions.
+See <a href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html">Why Open
+Source misses the point of Free Software</a>.</p>
+<p>
+The disagreement over values partially aligns with the amount of
+attention people pay to the GNU Project's role in our community.
+People who value freedom are more likely to call the system
+“GNU/Linux”, and people who learn that the system is
“GNU/Linux” are
+more likely to pay attention to our philosophical arguments for
+freedom and community (which is why the choice of name for the system
+makes a real difference for society). However, the disagreement would
+probably exist even if everyone knew the system's real origin and its
+proper name, because the issue is a real one. It can only go away if
+we who value freedom either persuade everyone (which won't be easy) or
+are defeated entirely (let's hope not).</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="freespeech">Doesn't the GNU project
+ support an individual's free speech rights to call the system by
+ any name that individual chooses? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#freespeech">#freespeech</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd>
+Yes, indeed, we believe you have a free speech right to call the
+operating system by any name you wish. We ask that people call it
+GNU/Linux as a matter of doing justice to the GNU project, to promote
+the values of freedom that GNU stands for, and to inform others that
+those values of freedom brought the system into existence.
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="everyoneknows">Since everyone knows
+ GNU's role in developing the system, doesn't the “GNU/” in the
+ name go without saying? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#everyoneknows">#everyoneknows</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>Experience shows that the system's users, and the computer-using
+public in general, often know nothing about the GNU system. Most
+articles about the system do not mention the name “GNU”, or the
ideals
+that GNU stands for. <a
+href="/gnu/gnu-users-never-heard-of-gnu.html">GNU Users Who Have Never
+Heard of GNU</a> explains further.
+<p>
+The people who say this are probably geeks thinking of the geeks they
+know. Geeks often do know about GNU, but many have a completely wrong
+idea of what GNU is. For instance, many think it is a collection
+of <a href="#tools">“tools”</a>, or a project to
develop tools.</p>
+<p>
+The wording of this question, which is typical, illustrates another
+common misconception. To speak of “GNU's role” in developing
+something assumes that GNU is a group of people. GNU is an operating
+system. It would make sense to talk about the GNU Project's role in
+this or some other activity, but not that of GNU.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="everyoneknows2">Since I know the role of GNU in this system,
+ why does it matter what name I use? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#everyoneknows2">#everyoneknows2</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+If your words don't reflect your knowledge, you don't teach others.
+Most people who have heard of the GNU/Linux system think it is
+“Linux”, that it was started by Linus Torvalds, and that
+it was intended to be “open source”. If you don't tell
+them, who will?
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="windows">Isn't shortening “GNU/Linux”
+ to “Linux” just like shortening “Microsoft
Windows” to “Windows”? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#windows">#windows</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+It's useful to shorten a frequently-used name, but not if the
+abbreviation is misleading.
+<p>
+Almost everyone in developed countries really does know that the
+“Windows” system is made by Microsoft, so shortening
“Microsoft
+Windows” to “Windows” does not mislead anyone as to that
system's
+nature and origin. Shortening “GNU/Linux” to “Linux”
does give the
+wrong idea of where the system comes from.</p>
+<p>
+The question is itself misleading because GNU and Microsoft are
+not the same kind of thing. Microsoft is a company;
+GNU is an operating system.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="tools">Isn't GNU a collection of
+ programming tools that were included in Linux? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#tools">#tools</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+People who think that Linux is an entire operating system, if they
+hear about GNU at all, often get a wrong idea of what GNU is. They
+may think that GNU is the name of a collection of programs—often they
+say “programming tools”, since some of our programming tools became
+popular on their own. The idea that “GNU” is the name of an
operating
+system is hard to fit into a conceptual framework in which that
+operating system is labeled “Linux”.
+<p>
+The GNU Project was named after the GNU operating system—it's the project
+to develop the GNU system. (See <a
+href="/gnu/initial-announcement.html">the 1983 initial
announcement</a>.)</p>
+<p>
+We developed programs such as GCC, GNU Emacs, GAS, GLIBC, BASH, etc.,
+because we needed them for the GNU operating system. GCC, the GNU
+Compiler Collection is the compiler that we wrote for the GNU
+operating system. We, the many people working on the GNU Project,
+developed Ghostscript, GNUCash, GNU Chess and GNOME for the GNU system
+too.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="osvskernel">What is the difference
+between an operating system and a kernel? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#osvskernel">#osvskernel</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+An operating system, as we use the term, means a collection of
+programs that are sufficient to use the computer to do a wide variety
+of jobs. A general purpose operating system, to be complete, ought to
+handle all the jobs that many users may want to do.
+<p>
+The kernel is one of the programs in an operating system—the program
+that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that are
+running. The kernel also takes care of starting and stopping other
+programs.</p>
+<p>
+To confuse matters, some people use the term “operating system” to
+mean “kernel”. Both uses of the term go back many years. The
+use of “operating system” to mean “kernel” is found in
a number of
+textbooks on system design, going back to the 80s. At the same time,
+in the 80s, the “Unix operating system” was understood to include
all
+the system programs, and Berkeley's version of Unix included even
+games. Since we intended GNU to be a Unix-like operating system, we
+use the term “operating system” in the same way.</p>
+<p>
+Most of the time when people speak of the “Linux operating system”
+they are using “operating system” in the same sense we use: they
mean
+the whole collection of programs. If that's what you are referring
+to, please call it “GNU/Linux”. If you mean just the kernel, then
+“Linux” is the right name for it, but please say
“kernel” also to
+avoid ambiguity about which body of software you mean.</p>
+<p>
+If you prefer to use some other term such as “system distribution”
for
+the entire collection of programs, instead of “operating system”,
+that's fine. Then you would talk about GNU/Linux system
+distributions.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="house">The kernel of a system is like the foundation of a
+ house. How can a house be almost complete when it doesn't have a
+ foundation? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#house">#house</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+A kernel is not much like the foundation of a house because building
+an operating system is not much like building a house.
+
+<p>A house is built from lots of little general parts that are cut and
+put together in situ. They have to be put together from the bottom
+up. Thus, when the foundation has not been built, no substantial part
+has been built; all you have is a hole in the ground.</p>
+
+<p>
+By contrast, an operating system consists of complex
+components that can be developed in any order. When you have
+developed most of the components, most of the work is done. This is
+much more like the International Space Station than like a house. If
+most of the Space Station modules were in orbit but awaiting one other
+essential module, that would be like the GNU system in 1992.
+</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="brain">Isn't the kernel the brain of the system? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#brain">#brain</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+A computer system is not much like a human body,
+and no part of it plays a role comparable to that of
+the brain in a human.
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="kernelmost">Isn't writing the kernel most of the work in an
+operating system? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#kernelmost">#kernelmost</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+No, many components take a lot of work.
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="notinstallable">How can GNU be an
+ operating system, if I can't get something called “GNU”
+ and install it? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#notinstallable">#notinstallable</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+Many <a href="/distros/distros.html"> packaged and installable
+versions of GNU</a> are available. None of them is called simply
+“GNU”, but GNU is what they basically are.
+
+<p>
+We expected to release the GNU system packaged for installation, but
+this plan was overtaken by events: in 1992 others were already
+packaging GNU variants containing Linux. Starting in 1993 we
+sponsored an effort to make a better and freer GNU/Linux distribution,
+called <a href="/distros/common-distros.html#Debian">Debian
+GNU/Linux</a>. The founder of Debian had already chosen that name.
+We did not ask him to call it just “GNU” because that was
+to be the name of a system version with the GNU Hurd kernel—which
+wasn't ready yet.</p>
+
+<p>
+The GNU Hurd kernel never became sufficiently ready; we only recommend
+it to those interested in working on it. So we never packaged GNU
+with the GNU Hurd kernel. However, Debian packaged this combination
+as Debian GNU/Hurd.</p>
+
+<p>
+We are now developing an advanced Scheme-based package manager called
+Guix and a complete system distribution based on it called the
+<a href="/software/guix">Guix System Distribution</a> or GuixSD.
+This includes repackaging a substantial part of the GNU system.</p>
+
+<p>
+We never took the last step of packaging GNU under the name
+“GNU”, but that doesn't alter what kind of thing GNU is.
+GNU is an operating system.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="afterkernel">We're calling the
+ whole system after the kernel, Linux. Isn't it normal to name an
+ operating system after a kernel? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#afterkernel">#afterkernel</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+That practice seems to be very rare—we can't find any examples other
+than the misuse of the name “Linux”. Normally an operating system
is
+developed as a single unified project, and the developers choose a
+name for the system as a whole. The kernel usually does not have a
+name of its own—instead, people say “the kernel of
such-and-such” or
+“the such-and-such kernel”.
+<p>
+Because those two constructions are used synonymously, the expression
+“the Linux kernel” can easily be misunderstood as meaning
“the kernel
+of Linux” and implying that Linux must be more than a kernel. You can
+avoid the possibility of this misunderstanding by saying or writing
+“the kernel, Linux” or “Linux, the kernel.”</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="feel">Can another system have “the
+ feel of Linux”? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#feel">#feel</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+There is no such thing as the “feel of Linux” because
+Linux has no user interfaces. Like any modern kernel, Linux is a base
+for running programs; user interfaces belong elsewhere in the system.
+Human interaction with GNU/Linux always goes through other programs,
+and the “feel” comes from them.
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="long">The problem with “GNU/Linux” is that it is too
long.
+ How about recommending a shorter name? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#long">#long</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+For a while we tried the name “LiGNUx”, which combines the words
“GNU”
+and “Linux”. The reaction was very bad. People accept
“GNU/Linux”
+much better.
+<p>
+The shortest legitimate name for this system is “GNU”, but
+we call it “GNU/Linux” <a href="#justgnu"> for the reasons
+given below</a>.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt <span class="inserted"><ins><em>id="long1">How about calling the
system
+ “GliNUx” (instead of “GNU/Linux”)?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#long1">#long1</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>The name “GNU” does not visibly appear in
+“Glinux,” so most people would not notice it is there.
+Even if it is capitalized as “GliNUx,” most people would
+not realize that it contains a reference to GNU.</p>
+
+<p>It would be comparable to writing “GNU/Linux,” but
+putting “GNU/” in print so small that most people could
+not read it.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt</em></ins></span> id="long2">The problem with
“GNU/Linux” is that it is too long.
+ Why should I go to the trouble of saying “GNU/”?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#long2">#long2</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>It only takes a second to say or type “GNU/”. If you
+appreciate the system that we developed, can't you take one second
+to recognize our work?</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="long3">Unfortunately, “GNU/Linux” is five
+ syllables. People won't use such a long term. Shouldn't you find a
+ shorter one?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#long3">#long3</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>Actually, “GNU/Linux” is only four syllables.
+ “Unfortunately” is five syllables, yet people show no
+ sign of reluctance to use that word.</p></dd>
+
+<dt id="justgnu">Since Linux is a secondary
+ contribution, would it be false to the facts to call the system simply
+ “GNU”? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#justgnu">#justgnu</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+It would not be false to the facts, but it is not the best thing to
+do. Here are the reasons we call that system version “GNU/Linux”
+rather than just “GNU”:
+
+<ul>
+<li>
+It's not exactly GNU—it has a different kernel (that is, Linux).
+Distinguishing GNU/Linux from GNU is useful.</li>
+<li>
+It would be ungentlemanly to ask people to <em>stop</em> giving any
+credit to Linus Torvalds. He did write an important component of the
+system. We want to get credit for launching and sustaining the
+system's development, but this doesn't mean we should treat Linus the
+same way those who call the system “Linux” treat us. We strongly
+disagree with his political views, but we deal with that disagreement
+honorably and openly, rather than by trying to cut him out of the
+credit for his contribution to the system.</li>
+<li>
+Since many people know of the system as “Linux”, if we say
“GNU” they
+may simply not recognize we're talking about the same system. If we
+say “GNU/Linux”, they can make a connection to what they have heard
+about.</li>
+</ul><p></p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="trademarkfee">I would have
+ to pay a fee if I use “Linux” in the name of a product, and
that
+ would also apply if I say “GNU/Linux”. Is it wrong if I use
“GNU”
+ without “Linux”, to save the fee? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#trademarkfee">#trademarkfee</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd>
+There's nothing wrong in calling the system “GNU”; basically,
that's
+what it is. It is nice to give Linus Torvalds a share of the credit
+as well, but you have no obligation to pay for the privilege of doing
+so.
+<p>
+So if you want to refer to the system simply as “GNU”, to avoid
paying
+the fee for calling it “Linux”, we won't criticize you.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="many">Many other projects contributed to
+ the system as it is today; it includes TeX, X11, Apache, Perl, and many
+ more programs. Don't your arguments imply we have to give them credit
+ too? (But that would lead to a name so long it is
+ absurd.) <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#many">#many</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+What we say is that you ought to give the system's principal developer
+a share of the credit. The principal developer is the GNU Project,
+and the system is basically GNU.
+<p>
+If you feel even more strongly about giving credit where it is due,
+you might feel that some secondary contributors also deserve credit in
+the system's name. If so, far be it from us to argue against it. If
+you feel that X11 deserves credit in the system's name, and you want
+to call the system GNU/X11/Linux, please do. If you feel that Perl
+simply cries out for mention, and you want to write GNU/Linux/Perl, go
+ahead.</p>
+<p>
+Since a long name such as GNU/X11/Apache/Linux/TeX/Perl/Python/FreeCiv
+becomes absurd, at some point you will have to set a threshold and
+omit the names of the many other secondary contributions. There is no
+one obvious right place to set the threshold, so wherever you set it,
+we won't argue against it.</p>
+<p>
+Different threshold levels would lead to different choices of name for
+the system. But one name that cannot result from concerns of fairness
+and giving credit, not for any possible threshold level, is
“Linux”.
+It can't be fair to give all the credit to one secondary contribution
+(Linux) while omitting the principal contribution (GNU).</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="others">Many other projects contributed to
+ the system as it is today, but they don't insist on calling it
+ XYZ/Linux. Why should we treat GNU specially? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#others">#others</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+Thousands of projects have developed programs commonly included in
+today's GNU/Linux systems. They all deserve credit for their
+contributions, but they aren't the principal developers of the system
+as a whole, so they don't ask to be credited as such.
+<p>
+GNU is different because it is more than just a contributed program,
+more than just a collection of contributed programs. GNU is the
+framework on which the system was made.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="allsmall">GNU is a small fraction of the system nowadays,
+ so why should we mention it? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#allsmall">#allsmall</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd>
+In 2008, we found that GNU packages made up 15% of the
+“main” repository of the gNewSense GNU/Linux distribution.
+Linux made up 1.5%. So the same argument would apply even more
+strongly to calling it “Linux”.
+
+<p>
+GNU is a small fraction of the system nowadays, and Linux is an
+even smaller fraction. But they are the system's core; the system
+was made by combining them. Thus, the name “GNU/Linux”
+remains appropriate.
+</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="manycompanies">Many companies
+ contributed to the system as it is today; doesn't that mean
+ we ought to call it GNU/Red Hat/Novell/Linux? <span
+ class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+ href="#manycompanies">#manycompanies</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>
+GNU is not comparable to Red Hat or Novell; it is not a company, or an
+organization, or even an activity. GNU is an operating system. (When
+we speak of the GNU Project, that refers to the project to develop the
+GNU system.) The GNU/Linux system is based on GNU, and that's why GNU
+ought to appear in its name.
+</p>
+<p>
+Much of those companies' contribution to the GNU/Linux system lies in
+the code they have contributed to various GNU packages including GCC
+and GNOME. Saying GNU/Linux gives credit to those companies along
+with all the rest of the GNU developers.
+</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="whyslash">Why do you write “GNU/Linux”
+instead of “GNU Linux”? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#whyslash">#whyslash</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+Following the rules of English, in the construction “GNU Linux” the
+word “GNU” modifies “Linux”. This can mean either
“GNU's version of
+Linux” or “Linux, which is a GNU package.” Neither of those
meanings
+fits the situation at hand.
+<p>
+Linux is not a GNU package; that is, it wasn't developed under the GNU
+Project's aegis or contributed specifically to the GNU Project. Linus
+Torvalds wrote Linux independently, as his own project. So the
+“Linux, which is a GNU package” meaning is not right.</p>
+<p>
+We're not talking about a distinct GNU version of Linux, the kernel.
+The free GNU/Linux distros do have
+a <a href="http://directory.fsf.org/project/linux">separate version of
+Linux</a>, since the “standard” version contains non-free
+firmware “blobs”. If this were part of the GNU Project,
+it could be considered “GNU Linux”; but we would not want
+to call it that, because it would be too confusing.</p>
+<p>
+We're talking about a version of GNU, the operating system,
+distinguished by having Linux as the kernel. A slash fits the
+situation because it means “combination.” (Think of
+“Input/Output”.) This system is the combination of GNU
+and Linux; hence, “GNU/Linux”.</p>
+<p>
+There are other ways to express “combination”. If you
+think that a plus-sign is clearer, please use that. In French, a
+hyphen is clear: “GNU-Linux”. In Spanish, we sometimes
+say “GNU con Linux”.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="whyorder">Why “GNU/Linux” rather
+than “Linux/GNU”? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#whyorder">#whyorder</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+It is right and proper to mention the principal contribution first.
+The GNU contribution to the system is not only bigger than Linux and
+prior to Linux, we actually started the whole activity.
+<p>
+However, if you prefer to call the system “Linux/GNU”, that is a
lot
+better than what people usually do, which is to omit GNU entirely and
+make it seem that the whole system is Linux.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="distronames0">My distro's developers call it
+ “Foobar Linux”, but that doesn't say anything about
+ what the system consists of. Why shouldn't they call it whatever
+ they like? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#distronames0">#distronames0</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd>
+Calling a system “Foobar Linux” implies that it's a flavor
+of “Linux,” and people <a href="#distronames">understand
+it that way</a>.
+
+<p>
+If they called a GNU/Linux distro “Foobar BSD,” you would
+call that a mistake. “This system is not BSD,” you
+would tell them. Well, it's not Linux either.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="distronames">My distro is called
+ “Foobar Linux”; doesn't that show it's really Linux? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#distronames">#distronames</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>It means that the people who make the “Foobar Linux”
distro are
+repeating the common mistake. We appreciate that distributions like Debian,
Dragora, Musix, Trisquel, and Venenux have adopted
+GNU/Linux as part of their official name, and we hope that if you are involved
with a different distribution, you will
+encourage it to do the same.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="distronames1">My distro's official name is “Foobar
+ Linux”; isn't it wrong to call the distro
+ anything but <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“Linux”?</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“Foobar Linux”?</em></ins></span>
<span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#distronames1">#distronames1</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><dd><p>If it's allowed for them
to change</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><dd><p>When they spread
misinformation by changing</em></ins></span> “GNU”
+to <span class="inserted"><ins><em>“Linux”, and call their version
of it</em></ins></span> “Foobar
+Linux”, it's <span
class="removed"><del><strong>allowed</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>proper</em></ins></span> for you to <span
class="removed"><del><strong>change it back and
+call</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>correct the
misinformation by
+calling</em></ins></span> it “Foobar <span
class="removed"><del><strong>GNU/Linux”. This is what you ought to do,
+to avoid their error.</p></dd></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>GNU/Linux”.</p></dd></em></ins></span>
+
+<dt id="companies">Wouldn't it be more
+ effective to ask companies such as Mandrake, Red Hat and IBM to
+ call their distributions “GNU/Linux” rather than asking
+ individuals? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#companies">#companies</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+It isn't a choice of one or the other—we ask companies and
+organizations and individuals to help spread the word about this. In
+fact, we have asked all three of those companies. Mandrake said it
+would use the term “GNU/Linux” some of the time, but IBM
+and Red Hat were unwilling to help. One executive said, “This
+is a pure commercial decision; we expect to make more money calling it
+‘Linux’.” In other words, that company did not care
+what was right.
+<p>
+We can't make them do this right, but we're not the sort to give up
+just because the road isn't easy. You may not have as much influence
+at your disposal as IBM or Red Hat, but you can still help. Together
+we can change the situation to the point where companies will make
+more profit calling it “GNU/Linux”.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="reserve">Wouldn't it be better to
+ reserve the name “GNU/Linux” for distributions that are purely
+ free software? After all, that is the ideal of GNU. <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#reserve">#reserve</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+The widespread practice of adding non-free software to the GNU/Linux
+system is a major problem for our community. It teaches the users
+that non-free software is ok, and that using it is part of the spirit
+of “Linux”. Many “Linux” User Groups make it part of
their mission to
+help users use non-free add-ons, and may even invite salesmen to come
+and make sales pitches for them. They adopt goals such as “helping
+the users” of GNU/Linux (including helping them use non-free
+applications and drivers), or making the system more popular even at
+the cost of freedom.
+<p>
+The question is how to try to change this.</p>
+<p>
+Given that most of the community which uses GNU with Linux already
+does not realize that's what it is, for us to disown these adulterated
+versions, saying they are not really GNU, would not teach the users to
+value freedom more. They would not get the intended message. They
+would only respond they never thought these systems were GNU in the
+first place.</p>
+<p>
+The way to lead these users to see a connection with freedom is
+exactly the opposite: to inform them that all these system
+versions <em>are</em> versions of GNU, that they all are based on a
+system that exists specifically for the sake of the users' freedom.
+With this understanding, they can start to recognize the distributions
+that include non-free software as perverted, adulterated versions of
+GNU, instead of thinking they are proper and appropriate “versions of
+Linux”.</p>
+<p>
+It is very useful to start GNU/Linux User Groups, which call the
+system GNU/Linux and adopt the ideals of the GNU Project as a basis
+for their activities. If the Linux User Group in your area has the
+problems described above, we suggest you either campaign within the
+group to change its orientation (and name) or start a new group. The
+people who focus on the more superficial goals have a right to their
+views, but don't let them drag you along!</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="gnudist">Why not make a GNU
+ distribution of Linux (sic) and call that GNU/Linux? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#gnudist">#gnudist</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+All the “Linux” distributions are actually versions of the GNU
system
+with Linux as the kernel. The purpose of the term “GNU/Linux” is
to
+communicate this point. To develop one new distribution and call that
+alone “GNU/Linux” would obscure the point we want to make.
+<p>
+As for developing a distribution of GNU/Linux, we already did this
+once, when we funded the early development of Debian GNU/Linux. To do
+it again now does not seem useful; it would be a lot of work, and
+unless the new distribution had substantial practical advantages over
+other distributions, it would serve no purpose.</p>
+<p>
+Instead we help the developers of 100% free GNU/Linux distributions,
+such as gNewSense and Ututo.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="linuxgnu">Why not just say “Linux is
+ the GNU kernel” and release some existing version of GNU/Linux under
+ the name “GNU”? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#linuxgnu">#linuxgnu</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+It might have been a good idea to adopt Linux as the GNU kernel back
+in 1992. If we had realized, then, how long it would take to get the
+GNU Hurd to work, we might have done that. (Alas, that is hindsight.)
+<p>
+If we were to take an existing version of GNU/Linux and relabel it as
+“GNU”, that would be somewhat like making a version of the GNU
system
+and labeling it “Linux”. That wasn't right, and we don't
+want to act like that.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="condemn">Did the GNU Project condemn
+ and oppose use of Linux in the early days? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#condemn">#condemn</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+We did not adopt Linux as our kernel, but we didn't condemn or oppose
+it. In 1993 we started discussing the arrangements to sponsor the
+development of Debian GNU/Linux. We also sought to cooperate with the
+people who were changing some GNU packages for use with Linux. We
+wanted to include their changes in the standard releases so that these
+GNU packages would work out-of-the-box in combination with Linux. But
+the changes were often ad-hoc and nonportable; they needed to be cleaned
+up for installation.
+<p>
+The people who had made the changes showed little interest in
+cooperating with us. One of them actually told us that he didn't care
+about working with the GNU Project because he was a “Linux user”.
+That came as a shock, because the people who ported GNU packages to
+other systems had generally wanted to work with us to get their
+changes installed. Yet these people, developing a system that was
+primarily based on GNU, were the first (and still practically the
+only) group that was unwilling to work with us.</p>
+<p>
+It was this experience that first showed us that people were calling a
+version of the GNU system “Linux”, and that this confusion was
+obstructing our work. Asking you to call the system “GNU/Linux” is
+our response to that problem, and to the other problems caused by the
+“Linux” misnomer.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="wait">Why did you wait so
+ long before asking people to use the name GNU/Linux? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#wait">#wait</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>Actually we didn't. We began talking privately with developers and
+distributors about this in 1994, and made a more public campaign in
+1996. We will continue for as long as it's necessary.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="allgpled">Should the GNU/<i>name</i>
+ convention be applied to all programs that are GPL'ed? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#allgpled">#allgpled</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+We never refer to individual programs as
“GNU/<i>name</i>”. When a program
+is a GNU package, we may call it “GNU <i>name</i>”.
+<p>
+GNU, the operating system, is made up of many different programs.
+Some of the programs in GNU were written as part of the GNU Project or
+specifically contributed to it; these are the GNU packages, and we
+often use “GNU” in their names.</p>
+<p>
+It's up to the developers of a program to decide if they want to contribute
+it and make it a GNU package. If you have developed a program and you
+would like it to be a GNU package, please write to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>, so we
can evaluate it
+and decide whether we want it.</p>
+<p>
+It wouldn't be fair to put the name GNU on every individual program
+that is released under the GPL. If you write a program and release it
+under the GPL, that doesn't mean the GNU Project wrote it or that you
+wrote it for us. For instance, the kernel, Linux, is released under
+the GNU GPL, but Linus did not write it as part of the GNU Project—he
+did the work independently. If something is not a GNU package, the
+GNU Project can't take credit for it, and putting “GNU” in its name
+would be improper.</p>
+<p>
+In contrast, we do deserve the overall credit for the GNU operating
+system as a whole, even though not for each and every program in it.
+The system exists as a system because of our determination and
+persistence, starting in 1984, many years before Linux was begun.</p>
+<p>
+The operating system in which Linux became popular was basically the
+same as the GNU operating system. It was not entirely the same,
+because it had a different kernel, but it was mostly the same system.
+It was a variant of GNU. It was the GNU/Linux system.</p>
+<p>
+Linux continues to be used primarily in derivatives of that system—in
+today's versions of the GNU/Linux system. What gives these systems
+their identity is GNU and Linux at the center of them, not particularly
+Linux alone.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="unix">Since much of GNU comes
+from Unix, shouldn't GNU give credit
+to Unix by using “Unix” in its name? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#unix">#unix</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+Actually, none of GNU comes from Unix. Unix was proprietary software
+(and still is), so using any of its code in GNU would have been
+illegal. This is not a coincidence; this is why we developed GNU:
+since you could not have freedom in using Unix, or any of the other
+operating systems of the day, we needed a free system to replace it.
+We could not copy programs, or even parts of them, from Unix;
+everything had to be written afresh.
+<p>
+No code in GNU comes from Unix, but GNU is a Unix-compatible system;
+therefore, many of the ideas and specifications of GNU do come from
+Unix. The name “GNU”, which stands for “GNU's Not
+Unix”, is a humorous way of giving credit to Unix for this,
+following a hacker tradition of recursive acronyms that started in the
+70s.</p>
+<p>
+The first such recursive acronym was TINT, “TINT Is Not
+TECO”. The author of TINT wrote another implementation of TECO
+(there were already many of them, for various systems), but instead of
+calling it by a dull name like “<em>somethingorother</em>
TECO”, he
+thought of a clever amusing name. (That's what hacking
+means: <a href="http://stallman.org/articles/on-hacking.html">playful
+cleverness</a>.)</p>
+<p>
+Other hackers enjoyed that name so much that we imitated the approach.
+It became a tradition that, when you were writing from scratch a
+program that was similar to some existing program (let's imagine its
+name was “Klever”), you could give it a recursive acronym name,
such
+as “MINK” for “MINK Is Not Klever.” In this same
spirit we called our
+replacement for Unix “GNU's Not Unix”.</p>
+<p>
+Historically, AT&T which developed Unix did not want anyone to
+give it credit by using “Unix” in the name of a similar
+system, not even in a system 99% copied from Unix. AT&T actually
+threatened to sue anyone giving AT&T credit in that way. This is
+why each of the various modified versions of Unix (all proprietary,
+like Unix) had a completely different name that didn't include
+“Unix”.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="bsd">Should we say “GNU/BSD”
+too? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#bsd">#bsd</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+We don't call the BSD systems (FreeBSD, etc.) “GNU/BSD” systems,
+because that term does not fit the history of the BSD systems.
+<p>
+The BSD system was developed by UC Berkeley as non-free software in
+the 80s, and became free in the early 90s. A free operating system
+that exists today is almost certainly either a variant of the GNU
+system, or a kind of BSD system.</p>
+<p>
+People sometimes ask whether BSD too is a variant of GNU, as GNU/Linux
+is. It is not. The BSD developers were inspired to make their code
+free software by the example of the GNU Project, and explicit appeals
+from GNU activists helped convince them to start, but the code had
+little overlap with GNU.</p>
+<p>
+BSD systems today use some GNU packages, just as the GNU system and
+its variants use some BSD programs; however, taken as wholes, they are
+two different systems that evolved separately. The BSD developers did
+not write a kernel and add it to the GNU system, so a name like
+GNU/BSD would not fit the situation.</p>
+<p>
+The connection between GNU/Linux and GNU is much closer, and that's
+why the name “GNU/Linux” is appropriate for it.</p>
+<p>
+There is a version of GNU which uses the kernel from NetBSD. Its
+developers call it “Debian GNU/NetBSD”, but
“GNU/kernelofNetBSD”
+would be more accurate, since NetBSD is an entire system, not just
+the kernel. This is not a BSD system, since most of the system
+is the same as the GNU/Linux system.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="othersys">If I install the GNU tools
+on Windows, does that mean I am running a GNU/Windows system? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#othersys">#othersys</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+Not in the same sense that we mean by “GNU/Linux”. The tools of
GNU
+are just a part of the GNU software, which is just a part of the GNU
+system, and underneath them you would still have another complete
+operating system which has no code in common with GNU. All in all,
+that's a very different situation from GNU/Linux.
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="justlinux">Can't Linux be used without GNU? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#justlinux">#justlinux</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+Linux is used by itself, or with small other programs, in some
+appliances. These small software systems are a far cry from the
+GNU/Linux system. Users do not install them on PCs, for instance, and
+would find them rather disappointing. It is useful to say that these
+appliances run just Linux, to show how different those small platforms
+are from GNU/Linux.
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="linuxsyswithoutgnu">Are there complete Linux systems [sic]
without GNU? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#linuxsyswithoutgnu">#linuxsyswithoutgnu</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+There are complete systems that contain Linux and not GNU; Android is
+an example. But it is a mistake to call them “Linux”
+systems, just as it is a mistake to call GNU a “Linux” system.
+<p>
+Android is very different from the GNU/Linux system—because
+the two have very little code in common. In fact, the only thing they
+have in common is Linux.</p>
+<p>
+If you call the whole GNU/Linux system “Linux”,
+you will find it necessary to say things like, “Android contains
+Linux, but it isn't Linux, because it doesn't have the usual Linux
+[sic] libraries and utilities [meaning the GNU system].”</p>
+<p>
+Android contains just as much of Linux as GNU/Linux does. What it
+doesn't have is the GNU system. Android replaces that with Google
+software that works quite differently. What makes Android different
+from GNU/Linux is the absence of GNU.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="howmuch">How much of the GNU system is needed for the system
+to be
+GNU/Linux? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#howmuch">#howmuch</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+“How much” is not a meaningful question because the GNU
+system does not have precise boundaries.
+<p>
+GNU is an operating system maintained by a community. It includes far
+more than just the GNU software packages (of which we have a specific
+list), and people add more packages constantly. Despite these
+changes, it remains the GNU system, and adding Linux to that yields
+GNU/Linux. If you use part of the GNU system and omit part, there is
+no meaningful way to say “how much” you used.</p>
+<p>
+If we look at the level of packages, Linux is one important package in
+the GNU/Linux system. The inclusion of one important GNU package is
+enough to justify our request for equal mention.
+</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="helplinus">Why not call the system
+ “Linux” anyway, and strengthen Linus Torvalds' role as
posterboy for our
+ community? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#helplinus">#helplinus</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+Linus Torvalds is the “posterboy” (other people's choice of word,
not
+ours) for his goals, not ours. His goal is to make the system more
+popular, and he believes its value to society lies merely in the
+practical advantages it offers: its power, reliability and easy
+availability. He has never advocated
+<a href="/philosophy/why-free.html">freedom to cooperate</a> as an
+ethical principle, which is why the public does not connect the name
+“Linux” with that principle.
+<p>
+Linus publicly states his disagreement with the free software
+movement's ideals. He developed non-free software in his job for many
+years (and said so to a large audience at a “Linux”World show), and
+publicly invited fellow developers of Linux, the kernel, to use
+non-free software to work on it with him. He goes even further, and
+rebukes people who suggest that engineers and scientists should
+consider social consequences of our technical work—rejecting the
+lessons society learned from the development of the atom bomb.</p>
+<p>
+There is nothing wrong with writing a free program for the motivations
+of learning and having fun; the kernel Linus wrote for those reasons
+was an important contribution to our community. But those motivations
+are not the reason why the complete free system, GNU/Linux, exists,
+and they won't secure our freedom in the future. The public needs to
+know this. Linus has the right to promote his views; however, people
+should be aware that the operating system in question
+stems from ideals of freedom, not from his views.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="claimlinux">Isn't it wrong for us to label Linus Torvalds'
+ work as GNU? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#claimlinux">#claimlinux</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+It would be wrong, so we don't do that. Torvalds' work is Linux, the
+kernel; we are careful not to attribute that work to the GNU Project
+or label it as “GNU”. When we talk about the whole
+system, the name “GNU/Linux” gives him a share of the
+credit.
+</dd>
+
+
+<dt id="linusagreed">Does Linus Torvalds
+ agree that Linux is just the kernel? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#linusagreed">#linusagreed</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>He recognized this at the beginning. The earliest Linux release notes
+said, <a
+href="http://ftp.funet.fi/pub/linux/historical/kernel/old-versions/RELNOTES-0.01">
+“Most of the tools used with linux are GNU software and are under the
+GNU copyleft. These tools aren't in the distribution - ask me (or GNU)
+for more info”</a>.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="finishhurd">Why not finish the GNU Hurd kernel, release the GNU
system
+ as a whole, and forget the question of what to call GNU/Linux?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#finishhurd">#finishhurd</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+We would like credit for the GNU operating system no matter which
+kernel is used with it.
+
+<p>Making the GNU Hurd work well enough to compete with Linux would be
+a big job, and it's not clearly necessary. The only thing ethically
+wrong with Linux as a kernel is its inclusion of firmware
+“blobs”; the best fix for that problem
+is <a href="http://fsf.org/campaigns/priority-projects"> developing
+free replacement for the blobs</a>.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="lost">The battle is already lost—society
+ has made its decision and we can't change it, so why even think about
+ it? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#lost">#lost</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+This isn't a battle, it is a campaign of education. What to call the
+system is not a single decision, to be made at one moment by
+“society”: each person, each organization, can decide what
+name to use. You can't make others say “GNU/Linux”, but
+you can decide to call the system “GNU/Linux”
+yourself—and by doing so, you will help educate others.
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="whatgood">Society has made its
+ decision and we can't change it, so what good does it do if I say
+ “GNU/Linux”? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#whatgood">#whatgood</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+This is not an all-or-nothing situation: correct and incorrect
+pictures are being spread more or less by various people. If you call
+the system “GNU/Linux”, you will help others learn the system's
true
+history, origin, and reason for being. You can't correct the misnomer
+everywhere on your own, any more than we can, but you can help. If
+only a few hundred people see you use the term “GNU/Linux”, you
will
+have educated a substantial number of people with very little work.
+And some of them will spread the correction to others.
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="explain">Wouldn't it be better to call
+ the system “Linux” and teach people its real origin with a
ten-minute
+ explanation? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#explain">#explain</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+If you help us by explaining to others in that way, we appreciate your
+effort, but that is not the best method. It is not as effective as
+calling the system “GNU/Linux”, and uses your time inefficiently.
+<p>
+It is ineffective because it may not sink in, and surely will not
+propagate. Some of the people who hear your explanation will pay
+attention, and they may learn a correct picture of the system's
+origin. But they are unlikely to repeat the explanation to others
+whenever they talk about the system. They will probably just call it
+“Linux”. Without particularly intending to, they will help spread
the
+incorrect picture.</p>
+<p>
+It is inefficient because it takes a lot more time. Saying and
+writing “GNU/Linux” will take you only a few seconds a day, not
+minutes, so you can afford to reach far more people that way.
+Distinguishing between Linux and GNU/Linux when you write and speak is
+by far the easiest way to help the GNU Project effectively.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="treatment">Some people laugh at you
+ when you ask them to call the system GNU/Linux. Why do you subject
+ yourself to this treatment? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#treatment">#treatment</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+Calling the system “Linux” tends to give people a mistaken picture
of
+the system's history and reason for existence. People who laugh at
+our request probably have picked up that mistaken picture—they think
+our work was done by Linus, so they laugh when we ask for credit for
+it. If they knew the truth, they probably wouldn't laugh.
+<p>
+Why do we take the risk of making a request that sometimes leads
+people to ridicule us? Because often it has useful results that help
+the GNU Project. We will run the risk of undeserved abuse to achieve
+our goals.</p>
+<p>
+If you see such an ironically unfair situation occurring, please don't
+sit idly by. Please teach the laughing people the real history. When
+they see why the request is justified, those who have any sense will
+stop laughing.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="alienate">Some people condemn you
+ when you ask them to call the system GNU/Linux. Don't you lose by
+ alienating them? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#alienate">#alienate</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+Not much. People who don't appreciate our role in developing the
+system are unlikely to make substantial efforts to help us. If they
+do work that advances our goals, such as releasing free software, it
+is probably for other unrelated reasons, not because we asked them.
+Meanwhile, by teaching others to attribute our work to someone else,
+they are undermining our ability to recruit the help of others.
+<p>
+It makes no sense to worry about alienating people who are already
+mostly uncooperative, and it is self-defeating to be deterred from
+correcting a major problem lest we anger the people who perpetuate it.
+Therefore, we will continue trying to correct the misnomer.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="rename">Whatever you contributed,
+ is it legitimate to rename the operating system? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#rename">#rename</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+We are not renaming anything; we have been calling this system
“GNU”
+ever since we announced it in 1983. The people who tried to rename
+it to “Linux” should not have done so.</dd>
+
+<dt id="force">Isn't it wrong to force people to call
+the system “GNU/Linux”? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#force">#force</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+It would be wrong to force them, and we don't try. We call the system
+“GNU/Linux”, and we ask you to do it too.
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="whynotsue">Why not sue people who call
+the whole system “Linux”? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#whynotsue">#whynotsue</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+There are no legal grounds to sue them, but since we believe in
+freedom of speech, we wouldn't want to do that anyway. We ask people
+to call the system “GNU/Linux” because that is the right thing to
do.
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="require">Shouldn't you put something in
+ the GNU GPL to require people to call the system “GNU”?
<span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#require">#require</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+The purpose of the GNU GPL is to protect the users' freedom from those
+who would make proprietary versions of free software. While it is
+true that those who call the system “Linux” often do things that
limit
+the users' freedom, such as bundling non-free software with the
+GNU/Linux system or even developing non-free software for such use,
+the mere act of calling the system “Linux” does not, in itself,
deny
+users their freedom. It seems improper to make the GPL restrict what
+name people can use for the system.
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="BSDlicense">Since you objected to the original BSD license's
+advertising requirement to give credit to the University of California,
+isn't it hypocritical to demand credit for the GNU project? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#BSDlicense">#BSDlicense</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+It would be hypocritical to make the name GNU/Linux a license
+requirement, and we don't. We only <em>ask</em> you to give us the
+credit we deserve.
+
+<p>
+Please note that there are at least <a href="/licenses/bsd.html">
+two different BSD licenses</a>. For clarity's sake, please don't use
+the term “BSD license” without specifying which one.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="deserve">Since you failed to put
+ something in the GNU GPL to require people to call the system
“GNU”,
+ you deserve what happened; why are you complaining now? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#deserve">#deserve</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+The question presupposes a rather controversial general ethical
+premise: that if people do not force you to treat them fairly, you are
+entitled to take advantage of them as much as you like. In other
+words, it assumes that might makes right.
+<p>
+We hope you disagree with that premise just as we do.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="contradict">Wouldn't you be better
+ off not contradicting what so many people believe? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#contradict">#contradict</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+We don't think we should go along with large numbers of people because
+they have been misled. We hope you too will decide that truth is
+important.
+<p>
+We could never have developed a free operating system without first
+denying the belief, held by most people, that proprietary software
+was legitimate and acceptable.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="somanyright">Since many people call
+it “Linux”, doesn't that make it right? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#somanyright">#somanyright</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+We don't think that the popularity of an error makes it the truth.
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="knownname">Isn't it better to call the
+ system by the name most users already know? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#knownname">#knownname</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+Users are not incapable of learning. Since “GNU/Linux”
+includes “Linux”, they will recognize what you're talking
+about. If you add “(often erroneously referred to as
+‘Linux’)” once in a while, they will all understand.
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="winning">Many people care about what's
+ convenient or who's winning, not about arguments of right or wrong.
+ Couldn't you get more of their support by a different
+ road? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#winning">#winning</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+To care only about what's convenient or who's winning is an amoral
+approach to life. Non-free software is an example of that amoral
+approach and thrives on it. Thus, in the long run it would be
+self-defeating for us to adopt that approach. We will continue
+talking in terms of right and wrong.
+<p>
+We hope that you are one of those for whom right and wrong do matter.</p>
+</dd>
+
+</dl>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.
+There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
+the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
+to <a
href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+ replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+ We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+ translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+ Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+ to <a href="mailto:address@hidden">
+ <address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ our web pages, see <a
+ href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+ README</a>. -->
+Please see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this article.</p>
+</div>
+
+<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
+ files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
+ be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this
+ without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
+ Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
+ document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
+ document was modified, or published.
+
+ If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
+ Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
+ years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
+ year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
+ being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
+
+ There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
+ Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
+
+<p>Copyright © 2001, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014,
<span class="removed"><del><strong>2015</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2015, 2016</em></ins></span>
+Free Software Foundation, Inc.</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2016/10/17 16:59:53 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
Index: po/gnu-linux-faq.uk-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/gnu-linux-faq.uk-diff.html
diff -N po/gnu-linux-faq.uk-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/gnu-linux-faq.uk-diff.html 17 Oct 2016 16:59:53 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,1571 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+ "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
+<!-- Generated by GNUN -->
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en" lang="en">
+<head>
+<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
+<title>/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html-diff</title>
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+</style></head>
+<body><pre>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: <span
class="removed"><del><strong>1.77</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>1.79</em></ins></span> -->
+<title>GNU/Linux FAQ
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+<!--#include virtual="/gnu/po/gnu-linux-faq.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>GNU/Linux FAQ by Richard Stallman</h2>
+
+<div class="announcement">
+ <blockquote><p>To learn more about this issue, you can also read
+our page on <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">Linux and the GNU
Project</a>, our
+ page on <a href="/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html">Why GNU/Linux?</a>
+and our page on <a href="/gnu/gnu-users-never-heard-of-gnu.html">GNU
+Users Who Have Never Heard of GNU</a>.</p></blockquote>
+</div>
+
+<p>
+When people see that we use and recommend the name GNU/Linux for a
+system that many others call just “Linux”, they ask many questions.
+Here are common questions, and our answers.</p>
+
+<ul>
+
+<li><a href="#why" id="TOCwhy">Why do you call it GNU/Linux and
not Linux?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#whycare" id="TOCwhycare">Why is the name
important?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#howerror" id="TOChowerror">How did it come about
that most
+ people call the system “Linux”?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#always" id="TOCalways">Should we always say
+“GNU/Linux” instead of “Linux”?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#linuxalone" id="TOClinuxalone">Would Linux have
achieved
+ the same success if there had been no GNU?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#divide" id="TOCdivide">Wouldn't it be better for the
+ community if you did not divide people with this
request?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#freespeech" id="TOCfreespeech">Doesn't the GNU
project
+ support an individual's free speech rights to call the system by
+ any name that individual chooses?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#everyoneknows" id="TOCeveryoneknows">Since everyone
+ knows the role of GNU in developing the system, doesn't the
+ “GNU/” in the name go without saying?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#everyoneknows2" id="TOCeveryoneknows2">Since I know
the role of
+ GNU in this system, why does it matter what name I
use?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#windows" id="TOCwindows">Isn't shortening
+ “GNU/Linux” to “Linux” just like
+ shortening “Microsoft Windows” to
+ “Windows”?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#tools" id="TOCtools">Isn't GNU a collection of
programming
+ tools that were included in Linux?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#osvskernel" id="TOCosvskernel">What is the
difference between an operating
+ system and a kernel?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#house" id="TOChouse">The kernel of a system is like
the foundation
+ of a house. How can a house be almost complete when it doesn't have a
+ foundation?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#brain" id="TOCbrain">Isn't the kernel the brain of
the
+ system?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#kernelmost" id="TOCkernelmost">Isn't writing the
kernel
+ most of the work in an operating system?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#notinstallable" id="TOCnotinstallable">How can GNU
be an
+ operating system, if I can't get something called “GNU”
+ and install it?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#afterkernel" id="TOCafterkernel">We're calling the
whole
+ system after the kernel, Linux. Isn't it normal to name an
+ operating system after a kernel?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#feel" id="TOCfeel">Can another system have “the
+ feel of Linux”?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#long" id="TOClong">The problem with
+ “GNU/Linux” is that it is too long. How about
+ recommending a shorter name?</a></li>
+
+<li><a <span class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#long1"
id="TOClong1">How about calling the system
+ “GliNUx” (instead of
“GNU/Linux”)?</a></li>
+
+<li><a</em></ins></span> href="#long2" id="TOClong2">The problem
with
+ “GNU/Linux” is that it is too long. Why should
+ I go to the trouble of saying “GNU/”?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#long3" id="TOClong3">Unfortunately,
+ “GNU/Linux” is five syllables. People won't use such a
+ long term. Shouldn't you find a shorter one?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#justgnu" id="TOCjustgnu">Since Linux is a secondary
+ contribution, would it be false to the facts to call the system
+ simply “GNU”?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#trademarkfee" id="TOCtrademarkfee">I would have to
pay a
+ fee if I use “Linux” in the name of a product, and
+ that would also apply if I say “GNU/Linux”. Is it
+ wrong if I use “GNU” without “Linux”, to
+ save the fee?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#many" id="TOCmany">Many other projects contributed
to the
+ system as it is today; it includes TeX, X11, Apache, Perl, and many
+ more programs. Don't your arguments imply we have to give them
+ credit too? (But that would lead to a name so long it is
+ absurd.)</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#others" id="TOCothers">Many other projects
contributed to
+ the system as it is today, but they don't insist on calling it
+ XYZ/Linux. Why should we treat GNU specially?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#allsmall" id="TOCallsmall">GNU is a small fraction
of the system
+ nowadays, so why should we mention it?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#manycompanies" id="TOCmanycompanies">Many companies
+ contributed to the system as it is today; doesn't that mean
+ we ought to call it GNU/Red Hat/Novell/Linux?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#whyslash" id="TOCwhyslash">Why do you write
+ “GNU/Linux” instead of “GNU
+ Linux”?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#whyorder" id="TOCwhyorder">Why
“GNU/Linux”
+rather than “Linux/GNU”?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#distronames0" id="TOCdistronames0">My distro's
developers call it
+ “Foobar Linux”, but that doesn't say anything about
+ what the system consists of. Why shouldn't they call it whatever
+ they like?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#distronames" id="TOCdistronames">My distro is called
+ “Foobar Linux”; doesn't that show it's really
+ Linux?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#distronames1" id="TOCdistronames1">My distro's
official
+ name is “Foobar Linux”; isn't it wrong to call the
+ distro anything but <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“Linux”?</a></li></strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>“Foobar
Linux”?</a></li></em></ins></span>
+
+<li><a href="#companies" id="TOCcompanies">Wouldn't it be more
+ effective to ask companies such as Mandrake, Red Hat and IBM to
+ call their distributions “GNU/Linux” rather than
+ asking individuals?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#reserve" id="TOCreserve">Wouldn't it be better to
+ reserve the name “GNU/Linux” for distributions that
+ are purely free software? After all, that is the ideal of
+ GNU.</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#gnudist" id="TOCgnudist">Why not make a GNU
distribution of
+ Linux (sic) and call that GNU/Linux?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#linuxgnu" id="TOClinuxgnu">Why not just say
“Linux
+ is the GNU kernel” and release some existing version of
+ GNU/Linux under the name “GNU”?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#condemn" id="TOCcondemn">Did the GNU Project condemn
and
+ oppose use of Linux in the early days?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#wait" id="TOCwait">Why did you wait so long before
+ asking people to use the name GNU/Linux?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#allgpled" id="TOCallgpled">Should the GNU/[name]
convention
+ be applied to all programs that are GPL'ed?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#unix" id="TOCunix">Since much of GNU comes from Unix,
+ shouldn't GNU give credit to Unix by using “Unix” in
+ its name?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#bsd" id="TOCbsd">Should we say “GNU/BSD”
+too?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#othersys" id="TOCothersys">If I install the GNU
tools on
+ Windows, does that mean I am running a GNU/Windows
system?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#justlinux" id="TOCjustlinux">Can't Linux be used
without
+GNU?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#howmuch" id="TOChowmuch">How much of the GNU system
+is needed for the system to be GNU/Linux?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#linuxsyswithoutgnu" id="TOClinuxsyswithoutgnu">Are
there complete Linux systems [sic] without GNU?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#helplinus" id="TOChelplinus">Why not call the system
+ “Linux” anyway, and strengthen Linus Torvalds' role as
+ posterboy for our community?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#claimlinux" id="TOCclaimlinux">Isn't it wrong for us
to label Linus
+ Torvalds' work as GNU?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#linusagreed" id="TOClinusagreed">Does Linus Torvalds
+ agree that Linux is just the kernel?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#finishhurd" id="TOCfinishhurd">Why not finish
+ the GNU Hurd kernel, release the GNU system as a whole,
+ and forget the question of what to call GNU/Linux?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#lost" id="TOClost">The battle is already
+ lost—society has made its decision and we can't change it,
+ so why even think about it?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#whatgood" id="TOCwhatgood">Society has made its
decision
+ and we can't change it, so what good does it do if I say
+ “GNU/Linux”?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#explain" id="TOCexplain">Wouldn't it be better to
call
+ the system “Linux” and teach people its real origin
+ with a ten-minute explanation?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#treatment" id="TOCtreatment">Some people laugh at
you when
+ you ask them to call the system GNU/Linux. Why do you subject yourself
+ to this treatment?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#alienate" id="TOCalienate">Some people condemn you
when you
+ ask them to call the system GNU/Linux. Don't you lose by
+ alienating them?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#rename" id="TOCrename">Whatever you contributed,
+ is it legitimate to rename the operating system?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#force">Isn't it wrong to force people to call
+ the system “GNU/Linux”?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#whynotsue">Why not sue people who call
+ the whole system “Linux”?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#BSDlicense" id="TOCBSDlicense">Since you objected to
the original
+ BSD license's advertising requirement to give credit to the University of
+ California, isn't it hypocritical to demand credit for the GNU
project?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#require" id="TOCrequire">Shouldn't you put something
in
+ the GNU GPL to require people to call the system
+ “GNU”?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#deserve" id="TOCdeserve">Since you failed to put
+ something in the GNU GPL to require people to call the system
+ “GNU”, you deserve what happened; why are you
+ complaining now?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#contradict" id="TOCcontradict">Wouldn't you be
better off
+ not contradicting what so many people believe?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#somanyright" id="TOCsomanyright">Since many people
call it
+ “Linux”, doesn't that make it right?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#knownname" id="TOCknownname">Isn't it better to call
the
+ system by the name most users already know?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#winning" id="TOCwinning">Many people care about
what's convenient or
+ who's winning, not about arguments of right or wrong. Couldn't you
+ get more of their support by a different road?</a></li>
+
+</ul>
+
+<dl>
+
+<dt id="why">Why do you call it GNU/Linux and not
+ Linux? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#why">#why</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>Most operating system distributions based on Linux as kernel are
+basically modified versions of the GNU operating system. We began
+developing GNU in 1984, years before Linus Torvalds started to write
+his kernel. Our goal was to develop a complete free operating system.
+Of course, we did not develop all the parts ourselves—but we led the way.
+We developed most of the central components, forming the largest single
+contribution to the whole system. The basic vision was ours too.
+<p>
+In fairness, we ought to get at least equal mention.</p>
+
+<p>See <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">Linux and the GNU
System</a>
+and <a href="/gnu/gnu-users-never-heard-of-gnu.html">GNU Users Who Have
+Never Heard of GNU</a> for more explanation, and <a
+href="/gnu/the-gnu-project.html">The GNU Project</a> for the
+history.</p> </dd>
+
+<dt id="whycare">Why is the name
+ important? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#whycare">#whycare</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>Although the developers of Linux, the kernel, are contributing to
+the free software community, many of them do not care about freedom.
+People who think the whole system is Linux tend to get confused and
+assign to those developers a role in the history of our community
+which they did not actually play. Then they give inordinate weight to
+those developers' views.
+<p>
+Calling the system GNU/Linux recognizes the role that our idealism
+played in building our community, and
+<a href="/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html">helps the public recognize the
+practical importance of these ideals</a>.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="howerror">How did it come about that most
+ people call the system “Linux”? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#howerror">#howerror</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>Calling the system “Linux” is a confusion that has
spread faster
+than the corrective information.
+<p>
+The people who combined Linux with the GNU system were not aware that
+that's what their activity amounted to. They focused their attention
+on the piece that was Linux and did not realize that more of the
+combination was GNU. They started calling it “Linux” even though
that
+name did not fit what they had. It took a few years for us to realize
+what a problem this was and ask people to correct the practice. By
+that time, the confusion had a big head start.</p>
+<p>
+Most of the people who call the system “Linux” have never heard why
+that's not the right thing. They saw others using that name and
+assume it must be right. The name “Linux” also spreads a false
+picture of the system's origin, because people tend to suppose that
+the system's history was such as to fit that name. For
+instance, they often believe its development was started by Linus
+Torvalds in 1991. This false picture tends to reinforce the idea
+that the system should be called “Linux”.</p>
+<p>
+Many of the questions in this file represent people's attempts to
+justify the name they are accustomed to using.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="always">Should we always say
+ “GNU/Linux” instead of “Linux”? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#always">#always</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd>
+Not always—only when you're talking about the whole system. When
+you're referring specifically to the kernel, you should call it
+“Linux”, the name its developer chose.
+<p>
+When people call the whole system “Linux”, as a consequence
+they call the whole system by the same name as the kernel.
+This causes many kinds of confusion, because only experts can tell
+whether a statement is about the kernel or the whole system.
+By calling the whole system “GNU/Linux”, and calling the kernel
+“Linux”, you avoid the ambiguity.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="linuxalone">Would Linux have
+ achieved the same success if there had been no
+ GNU? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#linuxalone">#linuxalone</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+In that alternative world, there would be nothing today like the
+GNU/Linux system, and probably no free operating system at all. No
+one attempted to develop a free operating system in the 1980s except
+the GNU Project and (later) Berkeley CSRG, which had been specifically
+asked by the GNU Project to start freeing its code.
+<p>
+Linus Torvalds was partly influenced by a speech about GNU in Finland
+in 1990. It's possible that even without this influence he might have
+written a Unix-like kernel, but it probably would not have been free
+software. Linux became free in 1992 when Linus rereleased it under
+the GNU GPL. (See the release notes for version 0.12.)</p>
+<p>
+Even if Torvalds had released Linux under some other free software
+license, a free kernel alone would not have made much difference to
+the world. The significance of Linux came from fitting into a larger
+framework, a complete free operating system: GNU/Linux.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="divide">Wouldn't it be better for the
+ community if you did not divide people with this request? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#divide">#divide</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+When we ask people to say “GNU/Linux”, we are not dividing people.
We
+are asking them to give the GNU Project credit for the GNU operating
+system. This does not criticize anyone or push anyone away.
+<p>
+However, there are people who do not like our saying this. Sometimes
+those people push us away in response. On occasion they are so rude
+that one wonders if they are intentionally trying to intimidate us
+into silence. It doesn't silence us, but it does tend to divide the
+community, so we hope you can convince them to stop.</p>
+<p>
+However, this is only a secondary cause of division in our community.
+The largest division in the community is between people who appreciate
+free software as a social and ethical issue and consider proprietary
+software a social problem (supporters of the free software movement),
+and those who cite only practical benefits and present free software
+only as an efficient development model (the open source movement).</p>
+<p>
+This disagreement is not just a matter of names—it is a matter
+of differing basic values. It is essential for the community to see
+and think about this disagreement. The names “free
+software” and “open source” are the banners of the
+two positions.
+See <a href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html">Why Open
+Source misses the point of Free Software</a>.</p>
+<p>
+The disagreement over values partially aligns with the amount of
+attention people pay to the GNU Project's role in our community.
+People who value freedom are more likely to call the system
+“GNU/Linux”, and people who learn that the system is
“GNU/Linux” are
+more likely to pay attention to our philosophical arguments for
+freedom and community (which is why the choice of name for the system
+makes a real difference for society). However, the disagreement would
+probably exist even if everyone knew the system's real origin and its
+proper name, because the issue is a real one. It can only go away if
+we who value freedom either persuade everyone (which won't be easy) or
+are defeated entirely (let's hope not).</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="freespeech">Doesn't the GNU project
+ support an individual's free speech rights to call the system by
+ any name that individual chooses? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#freespeech">#freespeech</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd>
+Yes, indeed, we believe you have a free speech right to call the
+operating system by any name you wish. We ask that people call it
+GNU/Linux as a matter of doing justice to the GNU project, to promote
+the values of freedom that GNU stands for, and to inform others that
+those values of freedom brought the system into existence.
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="everyoneknows">Since everyone knows
+ GNU's role in developing the system, doesn't the “GNU/” in the
+ name go without saying? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#everyoneknows">#everyoneknows</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>Experience shows that the system's users, and the computer-using
+public in general, often know nothing about the GNU system. Most
+articles about the system do not mention the name “GNU”, or the
ideals
+that GNU stands for. <a
+href="/gnu/gnu-users-never-heard-of-gnu.html">GNU Users Who Have Never
+Heard of GNU</a> explains further.
+<p>
+The people who say this are probably geeks thinking of the geeks they
+know. Geeks often do know about GNU, but many have a completely wrong
+idea of what GNU is. For instance, many think it is a collection
+of <a href="#tools">“tools”</a>, or a project to
develop tools.</p>
+<p>
+The wording of this question, which is typical, illustrates another
+common misconception. To speak of “GNU's role” in developing
+something assumes that GNU is a group of people. GNU is an operating
+system. It would make sense to talk about the GNU Project's role in
+this or some other activity, but not that of GNU.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="everyoneknows2">Since I know the role of GNU in this system,
+ why does it matter what name I use? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#everyoneknows2">#everyoneknows2</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+If your words don't reflect your knowledge, you don't teach others.
+Most people who have heard of the GNU/Linux system think it is
+“Linux”, that it was started by Linus Torvalds, and that
+it was intended to be “open source”. If you don't tell
+them, who will?
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="windows">Isn't shortening “GNU/Linux”
+ to “Linux” just like shortening “Microsoft
Windows” to “Windows”? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#windows">#windows</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+It's useful to shorten a frequently-used name, but not if the
+abbreviation is misleading.
+<p>
+Almost everyone in developed countries really does know that the
+“Windows” system is made by Microsoft, so shortening
“Microsoft
+Windows” to “Windows” does not mislead anyone as to that
system's
+nature and origin. Shortening “GNU/Linux” to “Linux”
does give the
+wrong idea of where the system comes from.</p>
+<p>
+The question is itself misleading because GNU and Microsoft are
+not the same kind of thing. Microsoft is a company;
+GNU is an operating system.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="tools">Isn't GNU a collection of
+ programming tools that were included in Linux? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#tools">#tools</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+People who think that Linux is an entire operating system, if they
+hear about GNU at all, often get a wrong idea of what GNU is. They
+may think that GNU is the name of a collection of programs—often they
+say “programming tools”, since some of our programming tools became
+popular on their own. The idea that “GNU” is the name of an
operating
+system is hard to fit into a conceptual framework in which that
+operating system is labeled “Linux”.
+<p>
+The GNU Project was named after the GNU operating system—it's the project
+to develop the GNU system. (See <a
+href="/gnu/initial-announcement.html">the 1983 initial
announcement</a>.)</p>
+<p>
+We developed programs such as GCC, GNU Emacs, GAS, GLIBC, BASH, etc.,
+because we needed them for the GNU operating system. GCC, the GNU
+Compiler Collection is the compiler that we wrote for the GNU
+operating system. We, the many people working on the GNU Project,
+developed Ghostscript, GNUCash, GNU Chess and GNOME for the GNU system
+too.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="osvskernel">What is the difference
+between an operating system and a kernel? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#osvskernel">#osvskernel</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+An operating system, as we use the term, means a collection of
+programs that are sufficient to use the computer to do a wide variety
+of jobs. A general purpose operating system, to be complete, ought to
+handle all the jobs that many users may want to do.
+<p>
+The kernel is one of the programs in an operating system—the program
+that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that are
+running. The kernel also takes care of starting and stopping other
+programs.</p>
+<p>
+To confuse matters, some people use the term “operating system” to
+mean “kernel”. Both uses of the term go back many years. The
+use of “operating system” to mean “kernel” is found in
a number of
+textbooks on system design, going back to the 80s. At the same time,
+in the 80s, the “Unix operating system” was understood to include
all
+the system programs, and Berkeley's version of Unix included even
+games. Since we intended GNU to be a Unix-like operating system, we
+use the term “operating system” in the same way.</p>
+<p>
+Most of the time when people speak of the “Linux operating system”
+they are using “operating system” in the same sense we use: they
mean
+the whole collection of programs. If that's what you are referring
+to, please call it “GNU/Linux”. If you mean just the kernel, then
+“Linux” is the right name for it, but please say
“kernel” also to
+avoid ambiguity about which body of software you mean.</p>
+<p>
+If you prefer to use some other term such as “system distribution”
for
+the entire collection of programs, instead of “operating system”,
+that's fine. Then you would talk about GNU/Linux system
+distributions.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="house">The kernel of a system is like the foundation of a
+ house. How can a house be almost complete when it doesn't have a
+ foundation? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#house">#house</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+A kernel is not much like the foundation of a house because building
+an operating system is not much like building a house.
+
+<p>A house is built from lots of little general parts that are cut and
+put together in situ. They have to be put together from the bottom
+up. Thus, when the foundation has not been built, no substantial part
+has been built; all you have is a hole in the ground.</p>
+
+<p>
+By contrast, an operating system consists of complex
+components that can be developed in any order. When you have
+developed most of the components, most of the work is done. This is
+much more like the International Space Station than like a house. If
+most of the Space Station modules were in orbit but awaiting one other
+essential module, that would be like the GNU system in 1992.
+</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="brain">Isn't the kernel the brain of the system? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#brain">#brain</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+A computer system is not much like a human body,
+and no part of it plays a role comparable to that of
+the brain in a human.
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="kernelmost">Isn't writing the kernel most of the work in an
+operating system? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#kernelmost">#kernelmost</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+No, many components take a lot of work.
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="notinstallable">How can GNU be an
+ operating system, if I can't get something called “GNU”
+ and install it? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#notinstallable">#notinstallable</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+Many <a href="/distros/distros.html"> packaged and installable
+versions of GNU</a> are available. None of them is called simply
+“GNU”, but GNU is what they basically are.
+
+<p>
+We expected to release the GNU system packaged for installation, but
+this plan was overtaken by events: in 1992 others were already
+packaging GNU variants containing Linux. Starting in 1993 we
+sponsored an effort to make a better and freer GNU/Linux distribution,
+called <a href="/distros/common-distros.html#Debian">Debian
+GNU/Linux</a>. The founder of Debian had already chosen that name.
+We did not ask him to call it just “GNU” because that was
+to be the name of a system version with the GNU Hurd kernel—which
+wasn't ready yet.</p>
+
+<p>
+The GNU Hurd kernel never became sufficiently ready; we only recommend
+it to those interested in working on it. So we never packaged GNU
+with the GNU Hurd kernel. However, Debian packaged this combination
+as Debian GNU/Hurd.</p>
+
+<p>
+We are now developing an advanced Scheme-based package manager called
+Guix and a complete system distribution based on it called the
+<a href="/software/guix">Guix System Distribution</a> or GuixSD.
+This includes repackaging a substantial part of the GNU system.</p>
+
+<p>
+We never took the last step of packaging GNU under the name
+“GNU”, but that doesn't alter what kind of thing GNU is.
+GNU is an operating system.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="afterkernel">We're calling the
+ whole system after the kernel, Linux. Isn't it normal to name an
+ operating system after a kernel? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#afterkernel">#afterkernel</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+That practice seems to be very rare—we can't find any examples other
+than the misuse of the name “Linux”. Normally an operating system
is
+developed as a single unified project, and the developers choose a
+name for the system as a whole. The kernel usually does not have a
+name of its own—instead, people say “the kernel of
such-and-such” or
+“the such-and-such kernel”.
+<p>
+Because those two constructions are used synonymously, the expression
+“the Linux kernel” can easily be misunderstood as meaning
“the kernel
+of Linux” and implying that Linux must be more than a kernel. You can
+avoid the possibility of this misunderstanding by saying or writing
+“the kernel, Linux” or “Linux, the kernel.”</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="feel">Can another system have “the
+ feel of Linux”? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#feel">#feel</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+There is no such thing as the “feel of Linux” because
+Linux has no user interfaces. Like any modern kernel, Linux is a base
+for running programs; user interfaces belong elsewhere in the system.
+Human interaction with GNU/Linux always goes through other programs,
+and the “feel” comes from them.
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="long">The problem with “GNU/Linux” is that it is too
long.
+ How about recommending a shorter name? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#long">#long</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+For a while we tried the name “LiGNUx”, which combines the words
“GNU”
+and “Linux”. The reaction was very bad. People accept
“GNU/Linux”
+much better.
+<p>
+The shortest legitimate name for this system is “GNU”, but
+we call it “GNU/Linux” <a href="#justgnu"> for the reasons
+given below</a>.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt <span class="inserted"><ins><em>id="long1">How about calling the
system
+ “GliNUx” (instead of “GNU/Linux”)?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#long1">#long1</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>The name “GNU” does not visibly appear in
+“Glinux,” so most people would not notice it is there.
+Even if it is capitalized as “GliNUx,” most people would
+not realize that it contains a reference to GNU.</p>
+
+<p>It would be comparable to writing “GNU/Linux,” but
+putting “GNU/” in print so small that most people could
+not read it.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt</em></ins></span> id="long2">The problem with
“GNU/Linux” is that it is too long.
+ Why should I go to the trouble of saying “GNU/”?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#long2">#long2</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>It only takes a second to say or type “GNU/”. If you
+appreciate the system that we developed, can't you take one second
+to recognize our work?</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="long3">Unfortunately, “GNU/Linux” is five
+ syllables. People won't use such a long term. Shouldn't you find a
+ shorter one?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#long3">#long3</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>Actually, “GNU/Linux” is only four syllables.
+ “Unfortunately” is five syllables, yet people show no
+ sign of reluctance to use that word.</p></dd>
+
+<dt id="justgnu">Since Linux is a secondary
+ contribution, would it be false to the facts to call the system simply
+ “GNU”? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#justgnu">#justgnu</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+It would not be false to the facts, but it is not the best thing to
+do. Here are the reasons we call that system version “GNU/Linux”
+rather than just “GNU”:
+
+<ul>
+<li>
+It's not exactly GNU—it has a different kernel (that is, Linux).
+Distinguishing GNU/Linux from GNU is useful.</li>
+<li>
+It would be ungentlemanly to ask people to <em>stop</em> giving any
+credit to Linus Torvalds. He did write an important component of the
+system. We want to get credit for launching and sustaining the
+system's development, but this doesn't mean we should treat Linus the
+same way those who call the system “Linux” treat us. We strongly
+disagree with his political views, but we deal with that disagreement
+honorably and openly, rather than by trying to cut him out of the
+credit for his contribution to the system.</li>
+<li>
+Since many people know of the system as “Linux”, if we say
“GNU” they
+may simply not recognize we're talking about the same system. If we
+say “GNU/Linux”, they can make a connection to what they have heard
+about.</li>
+</ul><p></p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="trademarkfee">I would have
+ to pay a fee if I use “Linux” in the name of a product, and
that
+ would also apply if I say “GNU/Linux”. Is it wrong if I use
“GNU”
+ without “Linux”, to save the fee? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#trademarkfee">#trademarkfee</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd>
+There's nothing wrong in calling the system “GNU”; basically,
that's
+what it is. It is nice to give Linus Torvalds a share of the credit
+as well, but you have no obligation to pay for the privilege of doing
+so.
+<p>
+So if you want to refer to the system simply as “GNU”, to avoid
paying
+the fee for calling it “Linux”, we won't criticize you.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="many">Many other projects contributed to
+ the system as it is today; it includes TeX, X11, Apache, Perl, and many
+ more programs. Don't your arguments imply we have to give them credit
+ too? (But that would lead to a name so long it is
+ absurd.) <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#many">#many</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+What we say is that you ought to give the system's principal developer
+a share of the credit. The principal developer is the GNU Project,
+and the system is basically GNU.
+<p>
+If you feel even more strongly about giving credit where it is due,
+you might feel that some secondary contributors also deserve credit in
+the system's name. If so, far be it from us to argue against it. If
+you feel that X11 deserves credit in the system's name, and you want
+to call the system GNU/X11/Linux, please do. If you feel that Perl
+simply cries out for mention, and you want to write GNU/Linux/Perl, go
+ahead.</p>
+<p>
+Since a long name such as GNU/X11/Apache/Linux/TeX/Perl/Python/FreeCiv
+becomes absurd, at some point you will have to set a threshold and
+omit the names of the many other secondary contributions. There is no
+one obvious right place to set the threshold, so wherever you set it,
+we won't argue against it.</p>
+<p>
+Different threshold levels would lead to different choices of name for
+the system. But one name that cannot result from concerns of fairness
+and giving credit, not for any possible threshold level, is
“Linux”.
+It can't be fair to give all the credit to one secondary contribution
+(Linux) while omitting the principal contribution (GNU).</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="others">Many other projects contributed to
+ the system as it is today, but they don't insist on calling it
+ XYZ/Linux. Why should we treat GNU specially? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#others">#others</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+Thousands of projects have developed programs commonly included in
+today's GNU/Linux systems. They all deserve credit for their
+contributions, but they aren't the principal developers of the system
+as a whole, so they don't ask to be credited as such.
+<p>
+GNU is different because it is more than just a contributed program,
+more than just a collection of contributed programs. GNU is the
+framework on which the system was made.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="allsmall">GNU is a small fraction of the system nowadays,
+ so why should we mention it? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#allsmall">#allsmall</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd>
+In 2008, we found that GNU packages made up 15% of the
+“main” repository of the gNewSense GNU/Linux distribution.
+Linux made up 1.5%. So the same argument would apply even more
+strongly to calling it “Linux”.
+
+<p>
+GNU is a small fraction of the system nowadays, and Linux is an
+even smaller fraction. But they are the system's core; the system
+was made by combining them. Thus, the name “GNU/Linux”
+remains appropriate.
+</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="manycompanies">Many companies
+ contributed to the system as it is today; doesn't that mean
+ we ought to call it GNU/Red Hat/Novell/Linux? <span
+ class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+ href="#manycompanies">#manycompanies</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>
+GNU is not comparable to Red Hat or Novell; it is not a company, or an
+organization, or even an activity. GNU is an operating system. (When
+we speak of the GNU Project, that refers to the project to develop the
+GNU system.) The GNU/Linux system is based on GNU, and that's why GNU
+ought to appear in its name.
+</p>
+<p>
+Much of those companies' contribution to the GNU/Linux system lies in
+the code they have contributed to various GNU packages including GCC
+and GNOME. Saying GNU/Linux gives credit to those companies along
+with all the rest of the GNU developers.
+</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="whyslash">Why do you write “GNU/Linux”
+instead of “GNU Linux”? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#whyslash">#whyslash</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+Following the rules of English, in the construction “GNU Linux” the
+word “GNU” modifies “Linux”. This can mean either
“GNU's version of
+Linux” or “Linux, which is a GNU package.” Neither of those
meanings
+fits the situation at hand.
+<p>
+Linux is not a GNU package; that is, it wasn't developed under the GNU
+Project's aegis or contributed specifically to the GNU Project. Linus
+Torvalds wrote Linux independently, as his own project. So the
+“Linux, which is a GNU package” meaning is not right.</p>
+<p>
+We're not talking about a distinct GNU version of Linux, the kernel.
+The free GNU/Linux distros do have
+a <a href="http://directory.fsf.org/project/linux">separate version of
+Linux</a>, since the “standard” version contains non-free
+firmware “blobs”. If this were part of the GNU Project,
+it could be considered “GNU Linux”; but we would not want
+to call it that, because it would be too confusing.</p>
+<p>
+We're talking about a version of GNU, the operating system,
+distinguished by having Linux as the kernel. A slash fits the
+situation because it means “combination.” (Think of
+“Input/Output”.) This system is the combination of GNU
+and Linux; hence, “GNU/Linux”.</p>
+<p>
+There are other ways to express “combination”. If you
+think that a plus-sign is clearer, please use that. In French, a
+hyphen is clear: “GNU-Linux”. In Spanish, we sometimes
+say “GNU con Linux”.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="whyorder">Why “GNU/Linux” rather
+than “Linux/GNU”? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#whyorder">#whyorder</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+It is right and proper to mention the principal contribution first.
+The GNU contribution to the system is not only bigger than Linux and
+prior to Linux, we actually started the whole activity.
+<p>
+However, if you prefer to call the system “Linux/GNU”, that is a
lot
+better than what people usually do, which is to omit GNU entirely and
+make it seem that the whole system is Linux.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="distronames0">My distro's developers call it
+ “Foobar Linux”, but that doesn't say anything about
+ what the system consists of. Why shouldn't they call it whatever
+ they like? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#distronames0">#distronames0</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd>
+Calling a system “Foobar Linux” implies that it's a flavor
+of “Linux,” and people <a href="#distronames">understand
+it that way</a>.
+
+<p>
+If they called a GNU/Linux distro “Foobar BSD,” you would
+call that a mistake. “This system is not BSD,” you
+would tell them. Well, it's not Linux either.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="distronames">My distro is called
+ “Foobar Linux”; doesn't that show it's really Linux? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#distronames">#distronames</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>It means that the people who make the “Foobar Linux”
distro are
+repeating the common mistake. We appreciate that distributions like Debian,
Dragora, Musix, Trisquel, and Venenux have adopted
+GNU/Linux as part of their official name, and we hope that if you are involved
with a different distribution, you will
+encourage it to do the same.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="distronames1">My distro's official name is “Foobar
+ Linux”; isn't it wrong to call the distro
+ anything but <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“Linux”?</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“Foobar Linux”?</em></ins></span>
<span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#distronames1">#distronames1</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><dd><p>If it's allowed for them
to change</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><dd><p>When they spread
misinformation by changing</em></ins></span> “GNU”
+to <span class="inserted"><ins><em>“Linux”, and call their version
of it</em></ins></span> “Foobar
+Linux”, it's <span
class="removed"><del><strong>allowed</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>proper</em></ins></span> for you to <span
class="removed"><del><strong>change it back and
+call</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>correct the
misinformation by
+calling</em></ins></span> it “Foobar <span
class="removed"><del><strong>GNU/Linux”. This is what you ought to do,
+to avoid their error.</p></dd></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>GNU/Linux”.</p></dd></em></ins></span>
+
+<dt id="companies">Wouldn't it be more
+ effective to ask companies such as Mandrake, Red Hat and IBM to
+ call their distributions “GNU/Linux” rather than asking
+ individuals? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#companies">#companies</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+It isn't a choice of one or the other—we ask companies and
+organizations and individuals to help spread the word about this. In
+fact, we have asked all three of those companies. Mandrake said it
+would use the term “GNU/Linux” some of the time, but IBM
+and Red Hat were unwilling to help. One executive said, “This
+is a pure commercial decision; we expect to make more money calling it
+‘Linux’.” In other words, that company did not care
+what was right.
+<p>
+We can't make them do this right, but we're not the sort to give up
+just because the road isn't easy. You may not have as much influence
+at your disposal as IBM or Red Hat, but you can still help. Together
+we can change the situation to the point where companies will make
+more profit calling it “GNU/Linux”.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="reserve">Wouldn't it be better to
+ reserve the name “GNU/Linux” for distributions that are purely
+ free software? After all, that is the ideal of GNU. <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#reserve">#reserve</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+The widespread practice of adding non-free software to the GNU/Linux
+system is a major problem for our community. It teaches the users
+that non-free software is ok, and that using it is part of the spirit
+of “Linux”. Many “Linux” User Groups make it part of
their mission to
+help users use non-free add-ons, and may even invite salesmen to come
+and make sales pitches for them. They adopt goals such as “helping
+the users” of GNU/Linux (including helping them use non-free
+applications and drivers), or making the system more popular even at
+the cost of freedom.
+<p>
+The question is how to try to change this.</p>
+<p>
+Given that most of the community which uses GNU with Linux already
+does not realize that's what it is, for us to disown these adulterated
+versions, saying they are not really GNU, would not teach the users to
+value freedom more. They would not get the intended message. They
+would only respond they never thought these systems were GNU in the
+first place.</p>
+<p>
+The way to lead these users to see a connection with freedom is
+exactly the opposite: to inform them that all these system
+versions <em>are</em> versions of GNU, that they all are based on a
+system that exists specifically for the sake of the users' freedom.
+With this understanding, they can start to recognize the distributions
+that include non-free software as perverted, adulterated versions of
+GNU, instead of thinking they are proper and appropriate “versions of
+Linux”.</p>
+<p>
+It is very useful to start GNU/Linux User Groups, which call the
+system GNU/Linux and adopt the ideals of the GNU Project as a basis
+for their activities. If the Linux User Group in your area has the
+problems described above, we suggest you either campaign within the
+group to change its orientation (and name) or start a new group. The
+people who focus on the more superficial goals have a right to their
+views, but don't let them drag you along!</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="gnudist">Why not make a GNU
+ distribution of Linux (sic) and call that GNU/Linux? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#gnudist">#gnudist</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+All the “Linux” distributions are actually versions of the GNU
system
+with Linux as the kernel. The purpose of the term “GNU/Linux” is
to
+communicate this point. To develop one new distribution and call that
+alone “GNU/Linux” would obscure the point we want to make.
+<p>
+As for developing a distribution of GNU/Linux, we already did this
+once, when we funded the early development of Debian GNU/Linux. To do
+it again now does not seem useful; it would be a lot of work, and
+unless the new distribution had substantial practical advantages over
+other distributions, it would serve no purpose.</p>
+<p>
+Instead we help the developers of 100% free GNU/Linux distributions,
+such as gNewSense and Ututo.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="linuxgnu">Why not just say “Linux is
+ the GNU kernel” and release some existing version of GNU/Linux under
+ the name “GNU”? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#linuxgnu">#linuxgnu</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+It might have been a good idea to adopt Linux as the GNU kernel back
+in 1992. If we had realized, then, how long it would take to get the
+GNU Hurd to work, we might have done that. (Alas, that is hindsight.)
+<p>
+If we were to take an existing version of GNU/Linux and relabel it as
+“GNU”, that would be somewhat like making a version of the GNU
system
+and labeling it “Linux”. That wasn't right, and we don't
+want to act like that.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="condemn">Did the GNU Project condemn
+ and oppose use of Linux in the early days? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#condemn">#condemn</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+We did not adopt Linux as our kernel, but we didn't condemn or oppose
+it. In 1993 we started discussing the arrangements to sponsor the
+development of Debian GNU/Linux. We also sought to cooperate with the
+people who were changing some GNU packages for use with Linux. We
+wanted to include their changes in the standard releases so that these
+GNU packages would work out-of-the-box in combination with Linux. But
+the changes were often ad-hoc and nonportable; they needed to be cleaned
+up for installation.
+<p>
+The people who had made the changes showed little interest in
+cooperating with us. One of them actually told us that he didn't care
+about working with the GNU Project because he was a “Linux user”.
+That came as a shock, because the people who ported GNU packages to
+other systems had generally wanted to work with us to get their
+changes installed. Yet these people, developing a system that was
+primarily based on GNU, were the first (and still practically the
+only) group that was unwilling to work with us.</p>
+<p>
+It was this experience that first showed us that people were calling a
+version of the GNU system “Linux”, and that this confusion was
+obstructing our work. Asking you to call the system “GNU/Linux” is
+our response to that problem, and to the other problems caused by the
+“Linux” misnomer.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="wait">Why did you wait so
+ long before asking people to use the name GNU/Linux? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#wait">#wait</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>Actually we didn't. We began talking privately with developers and
+distributors about this in 1994, and made a more public campaign in
+1996. We will continue for as long as it's necessary.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="allgpled">Should the GNU/<i>name</i>
+ convention be applied to all programs that are GPL'ed? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#allgpled">#allgpled</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+We never refer to individual programs as
“GNU/<i>name</i>”. When a program
+is a GNU package, we may call it “GNU <i>name</i>”.
+<p>
+GNU, the operating system, is made up of many different programs.
+Some of the programs in GNU were written as part of the GNU Project or
+specifically contributed to it; these are the GNU packages, and we
+often use “GNU” in their names.</p>
+<p>
+It's up to the developers of a program to decide if they want to contribute
+it and make it a GNU package. If you have developed a program and you
+would like it to be a GNU package, please write to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>, so we
can evaluate it
+and decide whether we want it.</p>
+<p>
+It wouldn't be fair to put the name GNU on every individual program
+that is released under the GPL. If you write a program and release it
+under the GPL, that doesn't mean the GNU Project wrote it or that you
+wrote it for us. For instance, the kernel, Linux, is released under
+the GNU GPL, but Linus did not write it as part of the GNU Project—he
+did the work independently. If something is not a GNU package, the
+GNU Project can't take credit for it, and putting “GNU” in its name
+would be improper.</p>
+<p>
+In contrast, we do deserve the overall credit for the GNU operating
+system as a whole, even though not for each and every program in it.
+The system exists as a system because of our determination and
+persistence, starting in 1984, many years before Linux was begun.</p>
+<p>
+The operating system in which Linux became popular was basically the
+same as the GNU operating system. It was not entirely the same,
+because it had a different kernel, but it was mostly the same system.
+It was a variant of GNU. It was the GNU/Linux system.</p>
+<p>
+Linux continues to be used primarily in derivatives of that system—in
+today's versions of the GNU/Linux system. What gives these systems
+their identity is GNU and Linux at the center of them, not particularly
+Linux alone.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="unix">Since much of GNU comes
+from Unix, shouldn't GNU give credit
+to Unix by using “Unix” in its name? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#unix">#unix</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+Actually, none of GNU comes from Unix. Unix was proprietary software
+(and still is), so using any of its code in GNU would have been
+illegal. This is not a coincidence; this is why we developed GNU:
+since you could not have freedom in using Unix, or any of the other
+operating systems of the day, we needed a free system to replace it.
+We could not copy programs, or even parts of them, from Unix;
+everything had to be written afresh.
+<p>
+No code in GNU comes from Unix, but GNU is a Unix-compatible system;
+therefore, many of the ideas and specifications of GNU do come from
+Unix. The name “GNU”, which stands for “GNU's Not
+Unix”, is a humorous way of giving credit to Unix for this,
+following a hacker tradition of recursive acronyms that started in the
+70s.</p>
+<p>
+The first such recursive acronym was TINT, “TINT Is Not
+TECO”. The author of TINT wrote another implementation of TECO
+(there were already many of them, for various systems), but instead of
+calling it by a dull name like “<em>somethingorother</em>
TECO”, he
+thought of a clever amusing name. (That's what hacking
+means: <a href="http://stallman.org/articles/on-hacking.html">playful
+cleverness</a>.)</p>
+<p>
+Other hackers enjoyed that name so much that we imitated the approach.
+It became a tradition that, when you were writing from scratch a
+program that was similar to some existing program (let's imagine its
+name was “Klever”), you could give it a recursive acronym name,
such
+as “MINK” for “MINK Is Not Klever.” In this same
spirit we called our
+replacement for Unix “GNU's Not Unix”.</p>
+<p>
+Historically, AT&T which developed Unix did not want anyone to
+give it credit by using “Unix” in the name of a similar
+system, not even in a system 99% copied from Unix. AT&T actually
+threatened to sue anyone giving AT&T credit in that way. This is
+why each of the various modified versions of Unix (all proprietary,
+like Unix) had a completely different name that didn't include
+“Unix”.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="bsd">Should we say “GNU/BSD”
+too? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#bsd">#bsd</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+We don't call the BSD systems (FreeBSD, etc.) “GNU/BSD” systems,
+because that term does not fit the history of the BSD systems.
+<p>
+The BSD system was developed by UC Berkeley as non-free software in
+the 80s, and became free in the early 90s. A free operating system
+that exists today is almost certainly either a variant of the GNU
+system, or a kind of BSD system.</p>
+<p>
+People sometimes ask whether BSD too is a variant of GNU, as GNU/Linux
+is. It is not. The BSD developers were inspired to make their code
+free software by the example of the GNU Project, and explicit appeals
+from GNU activists helped convince them to start, but the code had
+little overlap with GNU.</p>
+<p>
+BSD systems today use some GNU packages, just as the GNU system and
+its variants use some BSD programs; however, taken as wholes, they are
+two different systems that evolved separately. The BSD developers did
+not write a kernel and add it to the GNU system, so a name like
+GNU/BSD would not fit the situation.</p>
+<p>
+The connection between GNU/Linux and GNU is much closer, and that's
+why the name “GNU/Linux” is appropriate for it.</p>
+<p>
+There is a version of GNU which uses the kernel from NetBSD. Its
+developers call it “Debian GNU/NetBSD”, but
“GNU/kernelofNetBSD”
+would be more accurate, since NetBSD is an entire system, not just
+the kernel. This is not a BSD system, since most of the system
+is the same as the GNU/Linux system.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="othersys">If I install the GNU tools
+on Windows, does that mean I am running a GNU/Windows system? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#othersys">#othersys</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+Not in the same sense that we mean by “GNU/Linux”. The tools of
GNU
+are just a part of the GNU software, which is just a part of the GNU
+system, and underneath them you would still have another complete
+operating system which has no code in common with GNU. All in all,
+that's a very different situation from GNU/Linux.
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="justlinux">Can't Linux be used without GNU? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#justlinux">#justlinux</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+Linux is used by itself, or with small other programs, in some
+appliances. These small software systems are a far cry from the
+GNU/Linux system. Users do not install them on PCs, for instance, and
+would find them rather disappointing. It is useful to say that these
+appliances run just Linux, to show how different those small platforms
+are from GNU/Linux.
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="linuxsyswithoutgnu">Are there complete Linux systems [sic]
without GNU? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#linuxsyswithoutgnu">#linuxsyswithoutgnu</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+There are complete systems that contain Linux and not GNU; Android is
+an example. But it is a mistake to call them “Linux”
+systems, just as it is a mistake to call GNU a “Linux” system.
+<p>
+Android is very different from the GNU/Linux system—because
+the two have very little code in common. In fact, the only thing they
+have in common is Linux.</p>
+<p>
+If you call the whole GNU/Linux system “Linux”,
+you will find it necessary to say things like, “Android contains
+Linux, but it isn't Linux, because it doesn't have the usual Linux
+[sic] libraries and utilities [meaning the GNU system].”</p>
+<p>
+Android contains just as much of Linux as GNU/Linux does. What it
+doesn't have is the GNU system. Android replaces that with Google
+software that works quite differently. What makes Android different
+from GNU/Linux is the absence of GNU.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="howmuch">How much of the GNU system is needed for the system
+to be
+GNU/Linux? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#howmuch">#howmuch</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+“How much” is not a meaningful question because the GNU
+system does not have precise boundaries.
+<p>
+GNU is an operating system maintained by a community. It includes far
+more than just the GNU software packages (of which we have a specific
+list), and people add more packages constantly. Despite these
+changes, it remains the GNU system, and adding Linux to that yields
+GNU/Linux. If you use part of the GNU system and omit part, there is
+no meaningful way to say “how much” you used.</p>
+<p>
+If we look at the level of packages, Linux is one important package in
+the GNU/Linux system. The inclusion of one important GNU package is
+enough to justify our request for equal mention.
+</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="helplinus">Why not call the system
+ “Linux” anyway, and strengthen Linus Torvalds' role as
posterboy for our
+ community? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#helplinus">#helplinus</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+Linus Torvalds is the “posterboy” (other people's choice of word,
not
+ours) for his goals, not ours. His goal is to make the system more
+popular, and he believes its value to society lies merely in the
+practical advantages it offers: its power, reliability and easy
+availability. He has never advocated
+<a href="/philosophy/why-free.html">freedom to cooperate</a> as an
+ethical principle, which is why the public does not connect the name
+“Linux” with that principle.
+<p>
+Linus publicly states his disagreement with the free software
+movement's ideals. He developed non-free software in his job for many
+years (and said so to a large audience at a “Linux”World show), and
+publicly invited fellow developers of Linux, the kernel, to use
+non-free software to work on it with him. He goes even further, and
+rebukes people who suggest that engineers and scientists should
+consider social consequences of our technical work—rejecting the
+lessons society learned from the development of the atom bomb.</p>
+<p>
+There is nothing wrong with writing a free program for the motivations
+of learning and having fun; the kernel Linus wrote for those reasons
+was an important contribution to our community. But those motivations
+are not the reason why the complete free system, GNU/Linux, exists,
+and they won't secure our freedom in the future. The public needs to
+know this. Linus has the right to promote his views; however, people
+should be aware that the operating system in question
+stems from ideals of freedom, not from his views.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="claimlinux">Isn't it wrong for us to label Linus Torvalds'
+ work as GNU? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#claimlinux">#claimlinux</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+It would be wrong, so we don't do that. Torvalds' work is Linux, the
+kernel; we are careful not to attribute that work to the GNU Project
+or label it as “GNU”. When we talk about the whole
+system, the name “GNU/Linux” gives him a share of the
+credit.
+</dd>
+
+
+<dt id="linusagreed">Does Linus Torvalds
+ agree that Linux is just the kernel? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#linusagreed">#linusagreed</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>He recognized this at the beginning. The earliest Linux release notes
+said, <a
+href="http://ftp.funet.fi/pub/linux/historical/kernel/old-versions/RELNOTES-0.01">
+“Most of the tools used with linux are GNU software and are under the
+GNU copyleft. These tools aren't in the distribution - ask me (or GNU)
+for more info”</a>.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="finishhurd">Why not finish the GNU Hurd kernel, release the GNU
system
+ as a whole, and forget the question of what to call GNU/Linux?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#finishhurd">#finishhurd</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+We would like credit for the GNU operating system no matter which
+kernel is used with it.
+
+<p>Making the GNU Hurd work well enough to compete with Linux would be
+a big job, and it's not clearly necessary. The only thing ethically
+wrong with Linux as a kernel is its inclusion of firmware
+“blobs”; the best fix for that problem
+is <a href="http://fsf.org/campaigns/priority-projects"> developing
+free replacement for the blobs</a>.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="lost">The battle is already lost—society
+ has made its decision and we can't change it, so why even think about
+ it? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#lost">#lost</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+This isn't a battle, it is a campaign of education. What to call the
+system is not a single decision, to be made at one moment by
+“society”: each person, each organization, can decide what
+name to use. You can't make others say “GNU/Linux”, but
+you can decide to call the system “GNU/Linux”
+yourself—and by doing so, you will help educate others.
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="whatgood">Society has made its
+ decision and we can't change it, so what good does it do if I say
+ “GNU/Linux”? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#whatgood">#whatgood</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+This is not an all-or-nothing situation: correct and incorrect
+pictures are being spread more or less by various people. If you call
+the system “GNU/Linux”, you will help others learn the system's
true
+history, origin, and reason for being. You can't correct the misnomer
+everywhere on your own, any more than we can, but you can help. If
+only a few hundred people see you use the term “GNU/Linux”, you
will
+have educated a substantial number of people with very little work.
+And some of them will spread the correction to others.
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="explain">Wouldn't it be better to call
+ the system “Linux” and teach people its real origin with a
ten-minute
+ explanation? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#explain">#explain</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+If you help us by explaining to others in that way, we appreciate your
+effort, but that is not the best method. It is not as effective as
+calling the system “GNU/Linux”, and uses your time inefficiently.
+<p>
+It is ineffective because it may not sink in, and surely will not
+propagate. Some of the people who hear your explanation will pay
+attention, and they may learn a correct picture of the system's
+origin. But they are unlikely to repeat the explanation to others
+whenever they talk about the system. They will probably just call it
+“Linux”. Without particularly intending to, they will help spread
the
+incorrect picture.</p>
+<p>
+It is inefficient because it takes a lot more time. Saying and
+writing “GNU/Linux” will take you only a few seconds a day, not
+minutes, so you can afford to reach far more people that way.
+Distinguishing between Linux and GNU/Linux when you write and speak is
+by far the easiest way to help the GNU Project effectively.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="treatment">Some people laugh at you
+ when you ask them to call the system GNU/Linux. Why do you subject
+ yourself to this treatment? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#treatment">#treatment</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+Calling the system “Linux” tends to give people a mistaken picture
of
+the system's history and reason for existence. People who laugh at
+our request probably have picked up that mistaken picture—they think
+our work was done by Linus, so they laugh when we ask for credit for
+it. If they knew the truth, they probably wouldn't laugh.
+<p>
+Why do we take the risk of making a request that sometimes leads
+people to ridicule us? Because often it has useful results that help
+the GNU Project. We will run the risk of undeserved abuse to achieve
+our goals.</p>
+<p>
+If you see such an ironically unfair situation occurring, please don't
+sit idly by. Please teach the laughing people the real history. When
+they see why the request is justified, those who have any sense will
+stop laughing.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="alienate">Some people condemn you
+ when you ask them to call the system GNU/Linux. Don't you lose by
+ alienating them? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#alienate">#alienate</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+Not much. People who don't appreciate our role in developing the
+system are unlikely to make substantial efforts to help us. If they
+do work that advances our goals, such as releasing free software, it
+is probably for other unrelated reasons, not because we asked them.
+Meanwhile, by teaching others to attribute our work to someone else,
+they are undermining our ability to recruit the help of others.
+<p>
+It makes no sense to worry about alienating people who are already
+mostly uncooperative, and it is self-defeating to be deterred from
+correcting a major problem lest we anger the people who perpetuate it.
+Therefore, we will continue trying to correct the misnomer.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="rename">Whatever you contributed,
+ is it legitimate to rename the operating system? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#rename">#rename</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+We are not renaming anything; we have been calling this system
“GNU”
+ever since we announced it in 1983. The people who tried to rename
+it to “Linux” should not have done so.</dd>
+
+<dt id="force">Isn't it wrong to force people to call
+the system “GNU/Linux”? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#force">#force</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+It would be wrong to force them, and we don't try. We call the system
+“GNU/Linux”, and we ask you to do it too.
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="whynotsue">Why not sue people who call
+the whole system “Linux”? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#whynotsue">#whynotsue</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+There are no legal grounds to sue them, but since we believe in
+freedom of speech, we wouldn't want to do that anyway. We ask people
+to call the system “GNU/Linux” because that is the right thing to
do.
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="require">Shouldn't you put something in
+ the GNU GPL to require people to call the system “GNU”?
<span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#require">#require</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+The purpose of the GNU GPL is to protect the users' freedom from those
+who would make proprietary versions of free software. While it is
+true that those who call the system “Linux” often do things that
limit
+the users' freedom, such as bundling non-free software with the
+GNU/Linux system or even developing non-free software for such use,
+the mere act of calling the system “Linux” does not, in itself,
deny
+users their freedom. It seems improper to make the GPL restrict what
+name people can use for the system.
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="BSDlicense">Since you objected to the original BSD license's
+advertising requirement to give credit to the University of California,
+isn't it hypocritical to demand credit for the GNU project? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#BSDlicense">#BSDlicense</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+It would be hypocritical to make the name GNU/Linux a license
+requirement, and we don't. We only <em>ask</em> you to give us the
+credit we deserve.
+
+<p>
+Please note that there are at least <a href="/licenses/bsd.html">
+two different BSD licenses</a>. For clarity's sake, please don't use
+the term “BSD license” without specifying which one.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="deserve">Since you failed to put
+ something in the GNU GPL to require people to call the system
“GNU”,
+ you deserve what happened; why are you complaining now? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#deserve">#deserve</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+The question presupposes a rather controversial general ethical
+premise: that if people do not force you to treat them fairly, you are
+entitled to take advantage of them as much as you like. In other
+words, it assumes that might makes right.
+<p>
+We hope you disagree with that premise just as we do.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="contradict">Wouldn't you be better
+ off not contradicting what so many people believe? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#contradict">#contradict</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+We don't think we should go along with large numbers of people because
+they have been misled. We hope you too will decide that truth is
+important.
+<p>
+We could never have developed a free operating system without first
+denying the belief, held by most people, that proprietary software
+was legitimate and acceptable.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="somanyright">Since many people call
+it “Linux”, doesn't that make it right? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#somanyright">#somanyright</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+We don't think that the popularity of an error makes it the truth.
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="knownname">Isn't it better to call the
+ system by the name most users already know? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#knownname">#knownname</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+Users are not incapable of learning. Since “GNU/Linux”
+includes “Linux”, they will recognize what you're talking
+about. If you add “(often erroneously referred to as
+‘Linux’)” once in a while, they will all understand.
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="winning">Many people care about what's
+ convenient or who's winning, not about arguments of right or wrong.
+ Couldn't you get more of their support by a different
+ road? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#winning">#winning</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+To care only about what's convenient or who's winning is an amoral
+approach to life. Non-free software is an example of that amoral
+approach and thrives on it. Thus, in the long run it would be
+self-defeating for us to adopt that approach. We will continue
+talking in terms of right and wrong.
+<p>
+We hope that you are one of those for whom right and wrong do matter.</p>
+</dd>
+
+</dl>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.
+There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
+the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
+to <a
href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+ replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+ We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+ translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+ Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+ to <a href="mailto:address@hidden">
+ <address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ our web pages, see <a
+ href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+ README</a>. -->
+Please see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this article.</p>
+</div>
+
+<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
+ files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
+ be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this
+ without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
+ Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
+ document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
+ document was modified, or published.
+
+ If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
+ Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
+ years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
+ year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
+ being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
+
+ There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
+ Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
+
+<p>Copyright © 2001, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014,
<span class="removed"><del><strong>2015</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2015, 2016</em></ins></span>
+Free Software Foundation, Inc.</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2016/10/17 16:59:53 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
| [Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- www/gnu gnu-linux-faq.ko.html gnu-linux-faq.pl....,
GNUN <=