🚀 go-pugleaf

Christopher Browne wrote:
> The FSF folk propose the use of the term "GNU System," due to the
> similarities in intent and in licensing, and since there probably is
> more "Linux software" that is associated with "GNU projects" than with
> any other source of code.  In effect, they suggest naming the system
> "democratically" with votes being generated by where the code came from,
> and since they win on the basis of plurality, they get dibs on the
> name.

That is completely wrong.

The GNU project was started with the goal of creating a 100% free software
operating system.  An operating system is made up of many components: the
kernel; compilers, debuggers, linkers, libraries, and other development
tools; editors and other utilities; windowing systems; etc.  Every one of
these components needed to have a free version in order to have a free
operating system.  Since the GNU project was interested in a free operating
system, not in writing each in every component itself, it adopted whatever
free components it could find that already existed, or were written during
system development.  This included TeX, the X Window System, Perl, etc.  It
then set out to write the rest.  This included many unglamourous programs
that otherwise might never have gotten a free version, such as m4, the C
library, echo, etc.  Each component filled in a gap that brought the vision
of a totally free operating system closer to reality.  As it turned out, the
final component (the kernel) needed to have a free operating system was
written by Linus Torvalds, not by GNU people.  But nevertheless, this act
completed the free operating system that was envisioned by the Richard
Stallman back in 1983.  Without that vision, there would be no "Linux"
system today.  Whereas without any other particular component, a free
operating system would still come to be because the GNU project was making
one.  Any given component would eventually get built. Who wrote component X,
Y, or Z is not important.  What is important is the overall vision to make
the product (a free operating system) a reality.

If I use GNU MP and Bison to create a desktop calculator, I won't call it
"MP/Bison/RennCalc" even if a majority of the code is GNU components. 
Instead I would just call it "RennCalc" because it was my vision to create
the desktop calculator.  That requires many components including an input
parser, a calculation engine, a display module, etc.  If I find some of
these already written for me, that is just so much the better because it
lets me get my calculator done faster, but it is still my vision of the
calculator that made it a reality.  (I would probably still give credit to
the people who wrote major components of the calculator, but wouldn't name
the whole calculator after them).

Similarly, the reason to call it the GNU/Linux system is that it was the GNU
project's vision of a free operating system that make that free operating
system possible.  How many components of it were created by the GNU project
or anyone else is irrelevant.

-- 
Aaron M. Renn (arenn@urbanophile.com) http://www.urbanophile.com/arenn/