GNU/Linux naming controversy

The GNU/Linux naming controversy is a dispute among members of the free and open source software community relating to the normative branding of the computer operating systems commonly referred to as Linux.

GNU/Linux is the term promoted by the Free Software Foundation (FSF), its founder Richard Stallman, and its supporters, for operating systems that include GNU software and the Linux kernel. The FSF argues for the term GNU/Linux because GNU was a longstanding project to develop a free operating system, of which the kernel was the last missing piece. Proponents of the Linux term dispute this term for a number of reasons.

Among the "top ten distributions" based on the Linux kernel and GNU software (September 2007), two (Debian GNU/Linux and Knoppix live GNU/Linux system) use the term GNU/Linux in its official name, three (Ubuntu, openSUSE, Fedora) do not use either Linux or GNU/Linux in their names, four (Mandriva Linux, Mepis Linux, Slackware Linux, and Gentoo Linux) use Linux in their names, and finally PCLinuxOS uses a derivative name.

History

Plans for the GNU operating system were made in 1983 and in September of that year they were announced publicly. Software development work began in January 1984. GNU was to be a complete Unix-like operating system composed entirely of free software. By 1991, the GNU mid-level portions of the operating system were almost complete, and the upper level could be supplied by the X Window System, but the lower level (kernel, device drivers, system-level utilities and daemons) was still mostly lacking. The GNU kernel, GNU Hurd, was still in its infancy. The Hurd followed an ambitious design which proved unexpectedly difficult to implement and has only been marginally usable.

In 1991, the first version of the Linux kernel was released by Linus Torvalds. Early Linux kernel developers ported GNU code, including the GNU C Compiler, to run on Linux. Later, when the GNU developers learned of Linux, they adapted other parts of GNU to run on the Linux kernel. This work filled the remaining gaps in running a completely free operating system.

In 1992, the Yggdrasil Linux distribution adopted the name "Linux/GNU/X". The name "GNU/Linux" was first used by Debian in 1994. In GNU's June 1994 Bulletin, Linux is referred to as a "free Unix clone (with many GNU utilities and libraries)". In the January 1995 edition, the term "GNU/Linux" was used instead. In May 1996, Stallman released Emacs 19.31 with the system target "Linux" changed to "Lignux", also suggesting the alternatives of "Linux-based GNU system" or "GNU/Linux system". Stallman later used "GNU/Linux" exclusively.

GNU code in Unix-like Linux-based systems

A Unix-like, Linux-based operating system has many components, including the Linux kernel, software developed by the GNU project, and substantial amounts of software such as the X Window System by other authors. In an analysis of the source code for packages comprising Red Hat Linux 7.1, a typical Linux distribution, the total size of the packages from the GNU project was found to be much larger than the Linux kernel. Determining exactly what constitutes the "operating system" per se is a matter of continuing debate.

In some embedded systems such as handheld devices, the Linux kernel is used with few or no components of GNU, with alternatives like uClibc and BusyBox replacing the GNU tools. Everyone, including the FSF, agrees that "GNU/Linux" is not an appropriate name for these systems. Almost all Linux-based desktops and servers do use the GNU components, such as glibc (the GNU C Library), coreutils, and bash.

Opinions supporting "GNU/Linux"

FSF artwork of the gnu (GNU mascot) and the penguin Tux (Linux kernel mascot) representing their viewpoint on "GNU/Linux". The GNU General Public License (GPL), which is used by the Linux kernel as well as by most GNU software, armors both characters.

FSF claims the name "GNU/Linux" is justified because of the large number of GNU components and GNU source code used in such systems and because the GNU project specifically worked on what would bring about a complete operating system:

So if you were going to pick a name for the system based on who wrote the programs in the system, the most appropriate single choice would be GNU. But we don't think that is the right way to consider the question. The GNU Project was not, is not, a project to develop specific software packages. [...] Many people have made major contributions to the free software in the system, and they all deserve credit. But the reason it is an integrated system — and not just a collection of useful programs — is because the GNU Project set out to make it one. We made a list of the programs needed to make a complete free system, and we systematically wrote, or found people to write, everything on the list.

As well as being justified on those technical grounds, FSF argues that the name issue is important as a way connecting the technical contribution of the GNU project and the free software philosophy (rather than that of the Linux kernel developers):

Calling the system GNU/Linux recognizes the role that our idealism played in building our community, and helps the public recognize the practical importance of these ideals.

Calling this variant of the GNU system "Linux" plays into the hands of people who choose their software based only on technical advantage, not caring whether it respects their freedom.

The ordinary understanding of "operating system" includes both the kernel — the specific subsystem that directly interfaces with the hardware — and the "userland" software that is employed by the user and by application software to control the computer. Moreover, both the name "GNU" and the name "Linux" are intentionally related to the name "Unix", and Unix has always conceptually included the C library and userland tools as well as the kernel. In the 1991 release notes for versions 0.01 to 0.11 of the Linux kernel (which was not released under the GNU General Public License until version 0.12), Torvalds wrote:

Sadly, a kernel by itself gets you nowhere. To get a working system you need a shell, compilers, a library etc. These are separate parts and may be under a stricter (or even looser) copyright. 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.

Torvalds also wrote during the 1992 Tanenbaum-Torvalds debate that, "As has been noted (not only by me), the linux kernel is a miniscule part of a complete system".

The use of the word "Linux" to refer to the kernel, the operating system, and entire distributions, often leads to confusion about the distinctions between the three. Many GNU packages are a key part of almost every Linux distribution. Media sources frequently make erroneous statements such as claiming that the entire Linux operating system (rather than simply the kernel) was written from scratch by Torvalds in 1991; that Torvalds directs the development of other components such as graphical interfaces or the GNU tools; or that new releases of the kernel involve a similar degree of user-visible change as do new versions of proprietary operating systems such as Microsoft Windows, where many things besides the kernel change simultaneously.

Because of this confusion, legal threats and public relations campaigns apparently directed against the kernel, such as those launched by the SCO Group or the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution (AdTI), have been misinterpreted by many commentators who assume that the whole operating system is being targeted. These organisations have even been accused of deliberately exploiting this confusion.

In response to suggestions that Stallman's renaming efforts stem from egotism or personal pique, Stallman has responded that his interest is not in giving credit to himself, but to the GNU Project:

Some people think that it's because I want my ego to be fed. Of course, I'm not asking you to call it "Stallmanix".

Stallman has admitted to irritation, although he believes it to be justified:

If this thread is annoying, please imagine what it is like to see an idealistic project stymied and made ineffective, because people don't usually give it the credit for what it has done. If you're an idealist like me, that can ruin your whole decade.

In response to another common argument (see below), the FSF acknowledges that many people have contributed to GNU/Linux and that a short name cannot credit all of them, but argues that this cannot justify calling the system "Linux":

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 ... 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).

Although "GNU/Linux" is often Template:PronEng, "GNU Linux", Stallman has advocated explicit pronunciation of the slash to prevent the confusing implication that the Linux kernel itself is a GNU project:

I prefer to pronounce it GNU-slash-Linux, or GNU-plus-Linux. The reason is when you say GNU-Linux it is very much prone to suggest a misleading interpretation. After all, we have GNU Emacs which is the version of Emacs which was developed for GNU. If you say "GNU Linux", people will think it means a version of Linux that was developed for GNU. Which is not the fact.

Given that Stallman pronounces GNU as /gəˈnuː/, this would make it /gəˈnuː ˈslæʃ ˈlɪnəks/ or /gəˈnuː ˈplʌs ˈlɪnəks/.

Opinions supporting "Linux"

"Linux" is by far the most widespread name, and most people therefore simply adopt this usage, while references to the naming controversy appear only infrequently in mainstream sources. "Linux" has the most historical momentum because it is the name Torvalds has used for the combined system since 1991, while Stallman only began asking people to call the system "GNU/Linux" in the mid 1990s, some time after the "Linux" name had already become popular. "Linux" is shorter and easier to say than "GNU/Linux", particularly given Stallman's suggested pronunciation of /gəˈnuː slæʃ ˈlɪnəks/ or /gəˈnuː plʌs ˈlɪnəks/.

Richard Stallman himself had argued against a previous clause in the original BSD License, which required that any advertising for software that incorporated BSD code must display an acknowledgement of authorship to the University of California, Berkeley. Stallman claimed that this particular clause made the BSD License incompatible with the GNU GPL, and dubbed it an "obnoxious advertising clause". Later versions of the BSD License removed the requirement. Terry Hancock has used Stallman's campaign against the old BSD credit-in-advertising clause as an argument against Stallman's campaign for credit in the form of "GNU/Linux".

Eric S. Raymond writes (in the "Linux" entry of the Jargon File):

Some people object that the name "Linux" should be used to refer only to the kernel, not the entire operating system. This claim is a proxy for an underlying territorial dispute; people who insist on the term GNU/Linux want the FSF to get most of the credit for Linux because [Stallman] and friends wrote many of its user-level tools. Neither this theory nor the term GNU/Linux has gained more than minority acceptance.

Linus Torvalds has said in the documentary Revolution OS, when asked if the name GNU/Linux was justified:

Well, I think it's justified, but it's justified if you actually make a GNU distribution of Linux ... the same way that I think that "Red Hat Linux" is fine, or "SuSE Linux" or "Debian Linux", because if you actually make your own distribution of Linux, you get to name the thing, but calling Linux in general "GNU Linux" I think is just ridiculous.

The Linux Journal speculated that Stallman's advocacy of the combined name stems from frustration at Torvalds getting the glory for what Stallman wanted to do.

Linus Torvalds' take on the issue is:

Umm, this discussion has gone on quite long enough, thank you very much. It doesn't really matter what people call Linux, as long as credit is given where credit is due (on both sides). Personally, I'll very much continue to call it "Linux".

Others have suggested that, regardless of the merits, Stallman's persistence in what sometimes seems a lost cause makes him and GNU look bad. For example, Larry McVoy (author of the proprietary software BitKeeper, once used to manage Linux kernel development) opined that "claiming credit only makes one look foolish and greedy".

Many users and vendors who prefer the name "Linux" point to the inclusion of non-GNU, non-kernel tools such as the Apache HTTP Server, the X Window System or the K Desktop Environment in end-user operating systems based on the Linux kernel. As stated by Jim Gettys, originator of X:

There are lots of people on this bus; I don't hear a clamor of support that GNU is more essential than many of the other components; can't take a wheel away, and end up with a functional vehicle, or an engine, or the seats. I recommend you be happy we have a bus.

See also

• Alternative terms for free software
• GNU variants
• List of GNU packages
• Metonymy and synecdoche (the general concept of using the name of a part as the name for the whole)
• History of free software

Further reading

• "Why GNU/Linux?", by Richard Stallman
• GNU Users Who Have Never Heard of GNU, also by Richard Stallman
• Re: Proposal: Linrmsux (complete thread) (Craig Burley, Usenet gnu.misc.discuss, 30 May 1996)
• "GNU/Linux" vs. "Linux" (Slashdot, 9 April 1999). "FSF Issues GNU/Linux Name FAQ" (Slashdot, 25 September 2002).
• A mail from Richard Stallman, refuting many points from Alan Cox
• David A. Wheeler on why he mostly says "GNU/Linux"
• A transcript of an explanation of Linux and "GNU/", excerpted from a speech by Richard Stallman
• Stallman explaining the relationship of GNU and Linux, Zagreb, 2006
• What's in a name? (Richard Stallman, ZDNet, 12 October 2000)
• The Power of GNU (PCLinuxOnline, 26 October 2002)
• Why I Don't Use "Linux" (Timothy R. Butler, Open for Business, 25 August 2003)
• Who wrote Linux? (Josh Mehlman, ZDNet Australia, 7 July 2004)
• Linus Torvalds on the role of GNU in relation to Linux. (Interview appearing in "Revolution OS" DVD Release 2002)