"RMS" == Richard Stallman rms@gnu.org writes:
RMS> It is certainly possible to advocate freedom in software and RMS> call the system "Linux". I believe that you do. It is also RMS> possible to contribute to development of the GNU system in RMS> specific ways while calling the system "Linux". It could RMS> well be that you have. But it is impossible to be a true RMS> supporter of the GNU Project, or a friend of the FSF, while RMS> calling our work by a name that attributes it to someone RMS> else. That is treating us very badly.
RMS> The basic ethical question of the software field is whether RMS> your software is free is; that is the question of how you RMS> treat the general public. How you treat the FSF and the GNU RMS> Project is a lesser question--but it does matter to us. So RMS> even while we recognize that you sincerely support the cause RMS> of free software, we cannot accept in a list under FSF RMS> auspices your practice of attributing our system to someone RMS> else.
Firstly there is the whole question of whether Linux is primarily the work of the GNU project or the FSF. Most people, including those who are aware of the history of Linux and GNU prefer to attribute Linux to Linus Torvalds. It is only a handful of people in the FSF who claim that Linus actually wrote the kernel for the GNU operating system and that hence the OS must be called GNU/Linux.
Even if we leave the origin of Linux aside for a moment we are faced with the question of whether mindlessly forcing people to call the operating system GNU/Linux is the right way to spread the message of free software. You have effectively told me that in order to be able to contribute to this list I must conform to your nomenclature. I don't know if this is promoting freedom in any way. Personally I believe not, though that is just an opinion, just like so many others floating around.
I very much doubt if forcing the OS to be called by a specific name is the way to spread the message of any kind of freedom. I have myself seen the effect that this misguided passion for defining the name of the OS has had on the free software community. There have been innumerable cases of GNU/FSF advocates managing to alienate precisely those developers who have significantly contributed to free software, purely because of vocal and occasionally vituperative differences of opinion over the name of the OS.
And do recognise that it's just an opinion: some people claim that Linux is the GNU OS, some claim that it's Linus' OS, and there is no one single point of view on this matter that has `The Truth' written on it for all to see.
Freedom on the other hand is not a matter of opinion. Freedom is absolute, unshakeable and unarguable. Which is why I prefer to stick to the idea of freedom without bothering much about trivial issues related to names and opinions.
The only thing I can expect from this list now is being barred from posting, or being forcibly unsubscribed. If that happens, I would only be able to conclude that debate and questioning of some ideas is banned because of their origins -- a conditional freedom, if such a thing exists, since I know of no other forum where the FSF is willing to discuss and debate its stance on the name Linux vs GNU/Linux.
Regards,
-- Raju