diff options
author | Tong Hui <tonghuix@gmail.com> | 2016-03-25 16:52:03 +0800 |
---|---|---|
committer | Tong Hui <tonghuix@gmail.com> | 2016-03-25 16:52:03 +0800 |
commit | 5d6f7b414de4b04ddc19629ac6d1f5e5f3cb42ac (patch) | |
tree | b7d47d7d26bf9cd76ceeae138c71d4a99c7ac662 /docs/why-gnu-linux.md | |
download | fsfs-zh-5d6f7b414de4b04ddc19629ac6d1f5e5f3cb42ac.tar.xz |
first
Diffstat (limited to 'docs/why-gnu-linux.md')
-rw-r--r-- | docs/why-gnu-linux.md | 176 |
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/).\ |