first

1 files changed, 176 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/docs/why-gnu-linux.md b/docs/why-gnu-linux.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..1d08205
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/why-gnu-linux.md
@@ -0,0 +1,176 @@
+---
+Generator: 'texi2html 1.82'
+description: Untitled Document
+distribution: global
+keywords: Untitled Document
+resource-type: document
+title: Untitled Document
+...
+
+1. What’s in a Name? {#whats-in-a-name .chapter}
+====================
+
+@firstcopyingnotice{{To learn more about this issue, you can read our
+GNU/Linux FAQ, at <http://gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html>, the essay
+“Linux and the GNU System” (@pageref{Linux and GNU}), which gives a
+history of the GNU/Linux system as it relates to this issue of naming,
+and the article “GNU Users Who Have Never Heard of GNU,” at
+<http://gnu.org/gnu/gnu-users-never-heard-of-gnu.html>.\
+ @footnoterule @smallskip Copyright © 2000, 2006, 2007 Richard Stallman\
+ {This essay was originally published on <http://gnu.org>, in 2000. This
+version is part of @fsfsthreecite} Names convey meanings; our choice of
+names determines the meaning of what we say. An inappropriate name gives
+people the wrong idea. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet—but
+if you call it a pen, people will be rather disappointed when they try
+to write with it. And if you call pens “roses,” people may not realize
+what they are good for. If you call our operating system Linux, that
+conveys a mistaken idea of the system’s origin, history, and purpose. If
+you call it GNU/Linux, that conveys (though not in detail) an accurate
+idea.
+
+Does this really matter for our community? Is it important whether
+people know the system’s origin, history, and purpose? Yes—because
+people who forget history are often condemned to repeat it. The Free
+World that has developed around GNU/Linux is not guaranteed to survive;
+the problems that led us to develop GNU are not completely eradicated,
+and they threaten to come back.
+
+When I explain why it’s appropriate to call the operating system
+GNU/Linux rather than Linux, people sometimes respond this way:
+
+> Granted that the GNU Project deserves credit for this work, is it
+> really worth a fuss when people don’t give credit? Isn’t the important
+> thing that the job was done, not who did it? You ought to relax, take
+> pride in the job well done, and not worry about the credit.
+
+This would be wise advice, if only the situation were like that—if the
+job were done and it were time to relax. If only that were true! But
+challenges abound, and this is no time to take the future for granted.
+Our community’s strength rests on commitment to freedom and cooperation.
+Using the name GNU/Linux is a way for people to remind themselves and
+inform others of these goals.
+
+It is possible to write good free software without thinking of GNU; much
+good work has been done in the name of Linux also. But the term “Linux”
+has been associated ever since it was first coined with a philosophy
+that does not make a commitment to the freedom to cooperate. As the name
+is increasingly used by business, we will have even more trouble making
+it connect with community spirit.
+
+A great challenge to the future of free software comes from the tendency
+of the “Linux” distribution companies to add nonfree software to
+GNU/Linux in the name of convenience and power. All the major commercial
+distribution developers do this; none limits itself to free software.
+Most of them do not clearly identify the nonfree packages in their
+distributions. Many even develop nonfree software and add it to the
+system. Some outrageously advertise “Linux” systems that are “licensed
+per seat,” which give the user as much freedom as Microsoft Windows.
+
+People try to justify adding nonfree software in the name of the
+“popularity of Linux”—in effect, valuing popularity above freedom.
+Sometimes this is openly admitted. For instance, Wired magazine said
+that Robert McMillan, editor of Linux Magazine, “feels that the move
+toward open source software should be fueled by technical, rather than
+political, decisions.”And Caldera’s CEO openly urged users to drop the
+goal of freedom and work instead for the “popularity of
+Linux.”[(1)](#FOOT1)
+
+Adding nonfree software to the GNU/Linux system may increase the
+popularity, if by popularity we mean the number of people using some of
+GNU/Linux in combination with nonfree software. But at the same time, it
+implicitly encourages the community to accept nonfree software as a good
+thing, and forget the goal of freedom. It is not good to drive faster if
+you can’t stay on the road.
+
+When the nonfree “add-on” is a library or programming tool, it can
+become a trap for free software developers. When they write free
+software that depends on the nonfree package, their software cannot be
+part of a completely free system. Motif and Qt trapped large amounts of
+free software in this way in the past, creating problems whose solutions
+took years. Motif remained somewhat of a problem until it became
+obsolete and was no longer used. Later, Sun’s nonfree
+
+Java implementation had a similar effect: the Java Trap,[(2)](#FOOT2)
+fortunately now mostly corrected. If our community keeps moving in this
+direction, it could redirect the future of GNU/Linux into a mosaic of
+free and nonfree components. Five years from now, we will surely still
+have plenty of free software; but if we are not careful, it will hardly
+be usable without the nonfree software that users expect to find with
+it. If this happens, our campaign for freedom will have failed.
+
+If releasing free alternatives were simply a matter of programming,
+solving future problems might become easier as our community’s
+development resources increase. But we face obstacles that threaten to
+make this harder: laws that prohibit free software. As software patents
+mount up, and as laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act are used
+to prohibit the development of free software for important jobs such as
+viewing a DVD or listening to a RealAudio stream, we will find ourselves
+with no clear way to fight the patented and secret data formats except
+to *reject the nonfree programs that use them.*
+
+Meeting these challenges will require many different kinds of effort.
+But what we need above all, to confront any kind of challenge, is to
+remember the goal of freedom to cooperate. We can’t expect a mere desire
+for powerful, reliable software to motivate people to make great
+efforts. We need the kind of determination that people have when they
+fight for their freedom and their community—determination to keep on for
+years and not give up.
+
+In our community, this goal and this determination emanate mainly from
+the GNU Project. We’re the ones who talk about freedom and community as
+something to stand firm for; the organizations that speak of “Linux”
+normally don’t say this. The magazines about “Linux” are typically full
+of ads for nonfree software; the companies that package “Linux” add
+nonfree software to the system; other companies “support Linux” by
+developing nonfree applications to run on GNU/Linux; the user groups for
+“Linux” typically invite salesmen to present those applications. The
+main place people in our community are likely to come across the idea of
+freedom and determination is in the GNU Project.
+
+But when people come across it, will they feel it relates to them?
+
+People who know they are using a system that came out of the GNU Project
+can see a direct relationship between themselves and GNU. They won’t
+automatically agree with our philosophy, but at least they will see a
+reason to think seriously about it. In contrast, people who consider
+themselves “Linux users,” and believe that the GNU Project “developed
+tools which proved to be useful in Linux,” typically perceive only an
+indirect relationship between GNU and themselves. They may just ignore
+the GNU philosophy when they come across it.
+
+The GNU Project is idealistic, and anyone encouraging idealism today
+faces a great obstacle: the prevailing ideology encourages people to
+dismiss idealism as “impractical.” Our idealism has been extremely
+practical: it is the reason we have a free GNU/Linux operating system.
+People who love this system ought to know that it is our idealism made
+real.
+
+If “the job” really were done, if there were nothing at stake except
+credit, perhaps it would be wiser to let the matter drop. But we are not
+in that position. To inspire people to do the work that needs to be
+done, we need to be recognized for what we have already done. Please
+help us, by calling the operating system GNU/Linux.
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+### Footnotes
+
+### [(1)](#DOCF1)
+
+@raggedright Dietmar Muller, “Stallman: Love Is Not Free,” 10 July 2001,
+<http://zdnet.com/article/stallman-love-is-not-free/>. @end raggedright
+
+### [(2)](#DOCF2)
+
+@raggedright See “Free but Shackled—The Java Trap,” at
+<http://gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html>, for more on this issue. @end
+raggedright
+
+</div>
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using
+[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\