GNU/LINUX and RMS [LWN.net]

From:	 "Anand Srivastava" <Anand.Srivastava@ascom.ch>
To:	 rms@gnu.org
Subject: GNU/LINUX and RMS
Date:	 Thu, 23 May 2002 09:42:32 +0200
Cc:	 letters@lwn.net

Dear Mr. Stallman,

Reading the letters at lwn today I realised, a basic problem with
your request of calling Linux GNU/Linux. 

Linux is agnostic to the debate of free or commercial software. People
developing Linux do not in general care about whether a software is 
free or not, as exemplified by the Bitkeeper case. If it works they will 
use it. But they are together in that they would use GPL license to 
develop their software because that protects their rights better. 
I believe that is the thinking of the majority of the Linux developers. 
So Linux will end up in free distributions as well as commercial
distributions. In fact the only free distribution that I can think of is
Debian, which already uses the GNU/Linux name.

Calling Linux would associate the name GNU/Linux with all the
commercial distributions as well, with non-free software. Do you
really want GNU name associated with commercial software.

I think its better that GNU/Linux name is only associated with the
Debian distribution. I wouldn't want its significance diluted by it
being used with commercial software.

thanks,
-anand

(Log in to post comments)

GNU/LINUX and RMS

Posted Jun 8, 2002 5:59 UTC (Sat) by bignose (subscriber, #40) [Link]

> So Linux will end up in free distributions as well as commercial
> distributions. In fact the only free distribution that I can think of is
> Debian, which already uses the GNU/Linux name.

All software licensed under the GNU GPL (and other free software licenses) is free. Some of it is also commercial, in that it is paid for. In particular, all the major GNU/Linux distributions -- Debian included -- can be had for money from many vendors, making it commercial free software.

> Calling Linux would associate the name GNU/Linux with all the
> commercial distributions as well, with non-free software. Do you
> really want GNU name associated with commercial software.

You are making the mistake of conflating "non-free" and "commercial". As mentioned above, a great deal of free software is distributed for profit, making it commercial free software. There is also a lot of non-free software distributed for zero price, making it non-free non-commercial software. The issues are completely independent.

Also, the issue of including non-free software into GNU/Linux distributions is a separate one to the issue of what to name the operating system. The GNU project has, for eighteen years so far, focussed on the goal of creating an operating system. That operating system is called GNU, and many people use GNU with the Linux kernel without recognising that. Sometimes non-free software is added to the system, but it is still the GNU operating system.

> I think its better that GNU/Linux name is only associated with the
> Debian distribution. I wouldn't want its significance diluted by it
> being used with commercial software.

I'm very glad that so many GNU/Linux distributions are sold as commercial software: it allows the valuable services of customisation, integration, packaging, distribution, and support to be remunerated. Commercial software is a good thing, so long as it's free.

I'm less enthusiastic about the inclusion of non-free software into a GNU/Linux system. However, drawing more attention to the free-software basis of the system, by giving the operating system the name its creators have used for eighteen years, can only help to raise awareness of the issue.