Talk:GNU/Linux naming controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is undergoing a featured article review to ensure that it meets the standards of a featured article. Please add a comment to assist the process and/or be bold and improve the article directly. If the article has been moved from its initial review period to the Featured Article Removal Candidate (FARC) section, you may support or contest its removal. When the review is complete, a bot will update the article talk page.

GNU/Linux naming controversy is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 2, 2004.

Article Milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 1, 2004	Featured article candidate	Promoted
Current Status: Featured article

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Engtech article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.

	This article is part of the Linux WikiProject, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating to Linux, and who are involved in developing and proposing standards for their content, presentation and other aspects. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.

[edit] lack of legal enforcement is not an argument for one side or the other

Adrian keeps inserting the following under "Arguments for Linux"

"No legal requirements or trademark restrictions to use the terms "GNU", "Linux" or "GNU/Linux" are stipulated by the individual software packages or an aggregate distribution. People that name a product have the freedom of choice to use "Linux", "GNU/Linux" or not even using "Linux" at all in naming their products that are based on GNU and Linux projects. Most of the developers and companies use the term Linux to describe the Operating System that is based on Linux kernel and GNU tools, one notable exception is "Debian GNU/Linux".

I have removed it, for three reasons:

First, the fact that people are legally free to choose either name is, with a moment's thought, not an argument per se for one name or the other.

OK, but it has to be mentioned in order to frame the discussion. People are free to call their products however they want, nobody can tell them how to call them even if they are based only on Linux or GNU code, actually the only requirement is to not call them Linux or GNU unless they get permission for people who handle the registred names. -- AdrianTM 02:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Second, the fact that people have, de facto, mostly chosen a particular name has already been mentioned several times (pointing out that e.g. the "Linux" name is the most popular, the oldest, and has the most historical momentum).

Third, even if you feel you have some further smashing point of logic to add, we've being trying hard to avoid arguments by Wikipedians here, following policy. As much as possible arguments should be attributed to prominent commentators and supported by citations. (Several of whom have already been quoted as pointing to the popularity of the "Linux" term in response to suggestions of "GNU/Linux".)

—Steven G. Johnson 14:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cleaning up the intro

the intro felt rather POV-ish to me, consisting mostly of claims in favor of GNU/Linux proponents. i've shortened it and tried to make it more objective; those same claims can already be found in the section explicitly devoted to them. Benwing 02:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

it seems more POV-ish to me and less objective. where is the source for "GNU-written software is only a fraction (often cited as 25-35%) of the code that forms the Linux operating system"? --71.161.215.74 04:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I partially agree with this, people, everytime you come up with some numbers or estimates please, please, provide the reference, it shouldn't be dificult, just use the <ref> </ref> tags and include the link or the title of the book that you got the info from. Thanks. -- AdrianTM 04:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Besides the fact that it is a straw man. If you read the article, you'll find that the question of the size of GNU's contribution (although it is certainly larger than the kernel) to a typical distro is not the FSF's main argument. However, if you want numbers the "Linux and the GNU project" by Stallman cites "one CD vendor" as estimating 28% of their distro came from GNU. David Wheeler's "More than a Gigabuck: estimating GNU/Linux's size" article [1] unfortunately doesn't give number, although it states that "the total of the GNU project's code is much larger than the Linux kernel's size" while the kernel is the "largest single component". Unfortunately, no recent, quantitative sources that I can find in a quick search, but as I said it's a straw man anyway. —Steven G. Johnson 14:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree it's a straw man, it's a relevant fact. It doesn't argue against RMS arguments to be a straw man it's an argument in itself: "hey look this is the size of GNU, this is the size of Linux and this is the size of other parts", now you could argue that the size argument is not important (although we all know "size do matter") but you can't say it's a straw man. Frankly anytime I see somebody complaining about straw men in a discussion I know they are out of arguments... -- AdrianTM 16:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, what part of "don't put words in people's mouths" do you not understand? The intro presents this as the main argument of proponents of the term. It is not, as can be easily verified by RTFA. I agree that the size of the GNU components and the size of the kernel are relevant facts, but they should be presented as such, not as a false basis for an argument. I've rephrased the intro to try and present this more neutrally and accurately. —Steven G. Johnson 19:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand, they make a point in saying that the size of GNU code is small, that's a valid point in itself not a straw man. The issue is not what "GNU/Linux" or "Linux" proponents said, the issue is what the reality is, the GNU code is 20-30% of Linux distribution and that's an argument in itself. I can understand to correct the first paragraph that says that "Proponents of the term claim that the Linux kernel is only a small part of the system as a whole, and that the rest of the system is dominated by GNU software" if that's not correct, however I don't understand why you should delete that GNU is only 20-30% of the Linux OS, which is a valid point since more than 70% is something else, maybe Linux should be called something like Linux/GNU/BSD/Trolltech/etc OS. As far as I understand that should be only an introductory paragraph that shows what the discusion is about and arguments should be presented under the appropriate headings, however as it stands it seems like it presents a POV rather than just presenting the discussion. -- AdrianTM 20:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

As a side remark what FSF claims that "Linux kernel is only a part that was missing from the GNU system" is pretty silly, here Linus is right, if they would take Linux kernel and add it to GNU they get to call that whatever they want, even simply "GNU" or "GNU/Linux" if they want to be pedantic, but since Linus took the GNU code and added to his kernel he gets to call the final product however he wants: "Linux", "Freax", etc. Same for distro maintainers, they get to call their products whatever they want. All this discussion is pretty useless because things are called how people call them, not how they "should" be called. Ask any linguist... -- AdrianTM 20:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Adrian, the question is not whether something is "an argument", but whether it is an argument that prominent commentators actually make, as supported by citations. The tendency of this issue towards endless flamewars is a good reason to stick to closely to actual quotations. Second, the reason it was a straw man is that the size of the GNU system was falsely presented (in the old intro) as the main argument of the FSF and supporters, with the "but GNU is a small portion" as a response to this. Why is this so hard to grasp? Present the basic facts, and the arguments actually made.

(By the way, let's try to avoid hashing out our own arguments for the name here. Our personal opinions on this issue aren't particularly relevant to the article.)

—Steven G. Johnson 21:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't add that section about 20-30% GNU code in Linux OS, that's why I asked for reference too. I don't claim though that it wasn't said by some "prominent commentor" since I don't see any reference and I don't know who said it. -- AdrianTM 21:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

So what it is your objection? If it's not by a prominent commentator and is unsourced, it should be removed, and it was. Anything put in the introduction is implicitly a summary of the sourced material later in the article, and therefore is implicitly a summary of views of prominent commentators. —Steven G. Johnson 21:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

My objection was that it's not a straw man as you claimed. I do agree with you that's not referenced. sometimes instead of removing stuff it's better to add a {{fact}} or {{verify source}} tag. Your edits seemed to me a little bit lopsided, but that's probably OK, if somebody comes with the reference they can re-add it in the right place. -- AdrianTM 21:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The topic may be intrinsically lopsided, I'm afraid. I searched very hard for quotes to put in the "Arguments for Linux" section. (IIRC, all of the quotes there were inserted by me.) Most prominent commentators who use the "Linux" name simply ignore the debate—they don't have to argue since the status quo is their position. There already are a couple of quotes (see the Gettys quote, for example) that I added, however, which do argue against GNU/Linux on the basis of there being many contributors to the system. —Steven G. Johnson 22:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the intro, though, there are now two sentences laying out some basic facts (what is a Linux system and what part of it is the kernel and what part is GNU components, and other stuff...I'd love to include the 30% number if a reputable source can be found, although to be fair you'd want to also quote a number for the kernel). It has one sentence summarizing the FSF position, and one sentence summarizing the arguments on the other side. I'm not sure how this is "lopsided". —Steven G. Johnson 22:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Steven, I was the one who rewrote the intro that you rewrote again; and I've rewritten it yet again. You seem to have misunderstood some of my intention, so I've clarified it with further hedge terms and such. 20-30% is *not* an objective figure (there is no such figure, since there's no single definition of what a Linux OS is); rather, it's part of a claim made by proponents of using just "Linux". It's *not* a straw man; in fact, it's one of the most common claims made on this side. Your arguments that size "doesn't matter" in the FSF's view are clearly not quite right, since RMS's claims that the kernel is the "final small part" (or whatever) of the GNU system clearly imply that GNU is all the rest. However, I see your point. The sticking point seems to be in the validity and importance of the "GNU system" as a concept attributable to RMS, vs. code actually written by the FSF. I added a paragraph on the difference between the GNU system and actual GNU-written software that tries to clarify this.

I removed your text about size of the kernel itself vs. all GNU-written software; I don't think it's useful and it rather confuses the issue.

I also took out some text about trademarks because I don't think it's relevant in this context; but here it is:

(No attempts have been made to legally enforce a particular name, through trademarks, software licenses, or other means, although the term "Linux" is trademarked.^[1] For example, no particular name is required by the GNU General Public License, used for both the kernel and most GNU code.)

Benwing 09:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

If you chose to remove "text about size of the kernel itself vs. all GNU-written software", because you "don't think it's useful and it rather confuses the issue", then it's a bit contradictory or unfair to have left this in the intro, "Proponents of the term 'Linux' assert that the term 'GNU/Linux' exaggerates the importance of software that is claimed to comprise only a fraction of the code that forms the Linux operating system as a whole". --69.54.29.23 20:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No attempts have been made to legally enforce a particular name

This misrepresents the issue. It's not that there was no attempt (yet) the issue is that is part of the freedom that GPL gives you, there's absolutely no requirement to name the derived code in a way or another. (correct me if I'm wrong) -- AdrianTM 20:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually the only legal issue is not to use a trademark if you don't have the permission. But that's beyond this discussion. -- AdrianTM 20:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

To say that the GPL means that there can be no restriction on naming is a misunderstanding. First, the GPL is orthogonal to trademark law. Since "Linux" is trademarked, the Linux Mark Institute could decide tomorrow to prevent people (or at least products) from using the "Linux" name for anything but the kernel proper. Second, since the FSF owns the copyright on most of the GNU code, it could freely change the license tomorrow to require any operating system distributed with GNU code to be called "GNU/something". Third, I'm sure a lawyer could come up with other tricks. :-)

I'm not suggesting that either of these things is likely to occur. But it is false to imply, as the article did, that it is impossible for anyone to try and legally affect the nomenclature because of the GPL. The only correct thing is to say that this has not happened.

—Steven G. Johnson 21:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

We can't speculate what FSF might do or not, right now GPL doesn't require name attribution. Anybody can use the code and can do whatever they want with it, including making products that are named something else than "GNU". That's the fact. -- AdrianTM 21:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I really don't understand your problem here. The article states that no one has attempted to enforce a particular nomenclature, which is a fact that we can apparently both agree on. The old version was misleading because it implied that legal measures are impossible, which is clearly not true as I explained. Also, it is false to claim that there are no legal restrictions whatsoever on the naming, because the Linux Mark Institute does enforce the "Linux" trademark and does impose conditions (e.g. it charges a fee in certain contexts). What do you want it to say? —Steven G. Johnson 21:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

the legal measures are impossible as for now there's no requirements in GPL for naming of the derived products, we can't speculate about the future, but even GPL v3 doesn't contain such clauses (which by the way would be against the principles of free software). How is it now, I made it clear what are the restrictions for Linux name? -- AdrianTM 21:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I liked the previous version better. Why do we need to summarize trademark licensing, fair use, and licenses here (of which the GPL is but one among many used for Linux components)? It is sufficient to state that they have had no legal impact on the naming question. Why spend time on a tangent that everyone agrees is irrelevant, at least currently? —Steven G. Johnson 21:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't agree. There's a clear difference if for example I have no claim to your propriety or if I made no attempts to reclaim it. I would also appreciate if you'd not reverse my work and wait for a third opinion. Again, my opinion is that "no attempts were made yet" is misleading. -- AdrianTM 21:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

(Yes, there is a clear difference between someone trying to persuade you to do something, and someone trying to legally force you to do something. The article clearly states that this debate is of the former type and always has been. What is the problem?) —Steven G. Johnson 21:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you give an explanation of why it is misleading to say that "No attempts have been made to legally enforce a particular name?" I clearly explained how it would have been possible for several of the parties to attempt to legally affect the naming debate had they chosen to do so, and how they could choose to do so in the future. Your continued assertion that it is "impossible" is nonsensical to me, unless you know a different meaning of "impossible" than the one in my dictionary. (If someone can do something, but chooses not to, it's not "impossible".) —Steven G. Johnson 21:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me explain it for you. The GNU code is free, it was released under GPLv2 and now GPLv3 license. Under those license it is impossible to sue anyone that they didn't used GNU or whatever name for their products that were based on GPLed code. Now, if FSF decides to restrict the code and make a GPLv4 that demands specific naming conventions Linux will still be free to use the GNU tools that were released under GPLv2 and GPLv3, so you see it's impossible to restrict freedoms, thank God that RMS made it sure for that. -- AdrianTM 21:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. I understand that, and that's not what I outlined. Suppose the GNU project (or developers of any other major Linux component) decided tomorrow (or had decided ten years ago) to change the license on all their stuff to require a "GNU/Linux" name. Yes, this is extremely unlikely and goes against the stated intentions of Stallman and the FSF. Yes, you could use the old versions, and yes, there would certainly be forking. Yes, it would be a huge mess and probably a fiasco—everyone would have to choose whether to use the official maintained version and "GNU/Linux" or some forked version by new maintainers or some replacement. Yes, it might not work (in fact, it would probably create a backlash). But is it impossible to attempt? Certainly not. (It wouldn't even be unprecedented...e.g. the old BSD license had a similar advertising clause. Suppose ten years ago GNU had announced that the advertising clause was okay and that they wanted one too.) Also, you are ignoring the trademark issue, by which Linus could easily try to legally affect the naming if he chose, especially if he was suddenly brainwashed into agreeing with the FSF position that "Linux" only refers to the kernel. As I keep explaining, you seem to be equating "no one has attempted to impose any legal restrictions" with "no one could have attempted to impose any legal restrictions." —Steven G. Johnson 22:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we are talking about different things, I'm not sure what are you talking about, I'm talking about the legal status of the issue (current legal status, not about different speculations on the future status). Currently, GPL doesn't require GPLed derived work to be named in any way -- that's the fact, that's what I want reflected in the page. -- AdrianTM 22:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I have never disputed this. But, as I explain below, this is but one corner of a more general statement—that there have been no legal attempts of any kind, not just in the GNU licenses. Second, while I have no dispute that neither the current GPL, nor any license used for Linux software, currently affects the naming debate, I object to any phrasing that implies that legal measures are impossible. I also object to any phrasing that states that there are no restrictions whatsoever on the naming, which is clearly untrue because of the "Linux" trademark. —Steven G. Johnson 22:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, regarding your most recent edit: if you're going to say one thing in the article, it should be the most general true statement: that there have been no legal attempts to influence the naming debate in either direction. The lack of the requirements in the current GPL (which I do not dispute, and have never disputed) is just one specific example of this, and is therefore secondary. (You keep making grammatical errors in your entries. If English isn't your first language, that might help to explain some of the misunderstandings we are having here.) —Steven G. Johnson 22:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

PS. Your recent edit comments went further and suggested that the current phrasing is "incorrect". You still haven't explained this. —Steven G. Johnson 22:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

From the first sentence of this discussion I said that that paragraph is misleading. Now, if something is misleading it's pretty irrelevant if it's "correct" on the surface. From how you put it in that sentence one would understand that there might be some legal requirements to call the OS "GNU/Linux" just that nobody chose to challenge it in court (yet), or the issue is that at least from the GNU side of things there is no legal requirement to name it one way or another. The trademark issue is a completely separate discussion and introducing it in this discussion unnecessarily complicates things (BTW, Linux trademark has already been challanged in court, your paragraph makes this issue a little bit murky).

Frankly I think that what is in the article right now is the worst variant... it's long and confusing and what's the main point in this discussion is only treated as an unclear example. The point was short and simple and presented the issue that "GNU/Linux" vs "Linux" issue is a "moral" issue (or however you want to call it) not a legal one since GPL doesn't have requirements for naming derived products. From this simple idea look what that paragraph has become....

I also don't understand why you don't have patience for a 3rd opinion on the issue. Anyway with this I end what I had to say about the issue. -- AdrianTM 03:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The current bickering, and how it makes the article read

I'm opposed to the continual rewrites of the introductory paragraphs which go overboard in addressing subtle nuances to the detriment of the article's readability. Could people please keep in mind that the purpose of the intro is to lead the reader into the greater article, not to present a full summary of points.

For what it's worth, I broadly agree with AdrianTM's approach to the subject, both factually and stylistically. I'll wait until the current spat of total rewrites calms down before trying to sort the intro again though. Chris Cunningham 09:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Chris. My objections are not to AdrianTM but to Steven. also, as currently written, the second paragraph is the intro itself. the third and fourth paragraphs could be moved into another section; that might address your concerns. but i think those paragraphs need to be present, somewhere, as they summarize some important info that otherwise would be difficult to extract from the "arguments" sections, which present mostly quotes. Compare to the way a newspaper article works; it presents successively more detailed views, rather than jumping directly from an intro to the most detailed "he said, she said" section. (For that matter, I think the quotes need to be drastically trimmed; as it is the whole article is unencyclopedic.) Benwing 10:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with all of that. The quotes section includes all sorts of not-exactly-credible sources like Mangelo as well. I just wanted to point out with each successive counter-edit the intro seems to be increasing in girth withough making any obvious impact to its accuracy. Chris Cunningham 10:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the introduction should be a short summary of the basic facts and of the main arguments supported by citations/quotations later in the article. Please, however, practice what you preach, and don't insert new arguments in the intro.

The best way to keep bickering out of the intro is to keep it as short as possible. I've reduced the intro to two sentences summarizing the quoted arguments on each side, along with a short description of the composition of a typical Linux system in terms of the kernel, GNU, and other software sources. I think this should be sufficient.

(I would argue that the test for sources in an article like this is not credibility per se, it is notability and verifiability. If Bill Gates were to come out and say something completely ludicrous on the subject, it would still be worth quoting because he is notable. I don't have strong feelings on the MozillaQuest magazine quote myself, but note that this was already discussed in past Talk.)

—Steven G. Johnson 21:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes

The formatting change away from the over-the-top Template:cquote is much improved. This doesn't fix the problem that there are a lot of quotes for an encyclopedia article here, but at least they're not quite so distracting. --71.161.223.175 04:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Because this article is mostly about a question of opinion and taste, relying heavily on quotes from notable sources—much more heavily than a typical article—is really the only way to retain any semblance of NPOV. Otherwise, it's an invitation for every editor to inject their own favorite arguments, and the article turns into a Slashdot thread. —Steven G. Johnson 15:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unfortunate

It's unfortunate that the hard working Linux crew don't have the time or inclination for nonsense like this whilst the perennial blowhard RMS fascists have infiltrated Wikipedia and sabotaged all efforts to bring about some common sense and goal oriented work in the FOSS community. All for the insatiable ego of one total jackass.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.1.57.90 (talk) .

This is all because some people can't get some very simple facts. If you use free code you are free to call your resulting product whatever you like, it's not like the original author can came and claim "hey you use my code, you should give me credit", sorry man, but it's not your code anymore, it's free and I get to call my product, there's no requirement in GPL to call derived products in one way or another, if you want credit then you should use a different license that demands credit (although credit is usually shown by giving credit to the person(s) who wrote the initial code, not by keeping the name of the product, which, by the way has been modified in the meantime)... that's exactly Linus' point when he said that FSF get to name their OS however they want if they take Linux kernel and use it in GNU OS, they can even call it only "GNU" if they choose so, that's exactly what Linus did, he took free parts from GNU, put his Linux kernel and named that Linux OS other people took that and modified, added stuff and they named the resulting product: "Fedora Linux", "RedHat Linux", "SUSE Linux", "Ubuntu" and so on except Debian who chose GNU/Linux (that's their right), people in general call that "Linux", that's how most of the people call it, that's how developers call it, only RMS insists "hey, give credit to our project", now, he's right, he deserve credit, many times Linus said that he couldn't do it without GNU project, however Linus gets to name his product however he likes and people should understand that it's his product even if he used 30% free code, or 99.99%, or even if he used 100% free code, that's the nature of free code you take it and you make your own project out of it, it's really bad form from people who contributed to the initial code to come back to you and try to force you to name your product when that's not required by the license in order to get free publicity out of it -- that's really an attack on the freedom of the code, I mean they should decide if it's really free, or if it comes with additional "moral" requirements (basically free advertising) included. It's also irrelevant if some few people around think they know what people should do and try to push their POV down the throat of the majority of people, including the Linux developers and distro mainainers. -- AdrianTM 05:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls. You're post contains numerous errors, many of which are answered in the FAQ. Gronky 12:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Care to point my mistakes? I don't think that FAQ addresses any of the points I raised. -- AdrianTM 21:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

One mistake is your claim that the GNU project is "try[ing] to force you" to use a particular name - a boggling claim when you point out in the very same sentence that they have decided not to use their licence to impose this supposed "force". Another mistake is your repeated implications that FSF or the GNU project doesn't think you should be free to call the system whatever you want are incorrect. The opposite is true. FSF agree that you should be able to call the OS whatever you want - they agree that this is an important freedom. They ask (repeatedly) that you call it GNU/Linux, and they explain why (repeatedly). Asking and explaining are not "forcing" or limiting your freedom of speech/naming. Here's a transcript of an explantion of why RMS asks for credit, if you're interested, particularly the 3rd last paragraph, but the FAQ does a better job. Gronky 22:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, It's true that they ask people (repeatedly) to call it GNU/Linux, I agree they don't "try to force" (although nagging can be sometimes perceived as a from of "forcing"), but some other people around do try to force their POV. But anyway, even "asking" people to call a project some way or another is not quite OK with me. For example I make a wonderful program that I name "Adrian" and I make it freely available for people and companies to use it, Microsoft (or RedHat, doesn't really matter who) gets that code, add their code and make a hugely popular product, then after couple of years or so I come and "ask" (repeatedly) people to use "Adrian" name because it was my idea, it was my initial code, without me it wouldn't exist, and then people who adulate me or my ideas/ideals would go around and troll forums and Wikipedia asking people to call the product "Adrian", claiming that "Adrian" is the correct name, in order to promote my ideas. Does that sound OK? I very well understand and approve the ideas that stay at the basis of GNU and FSF, however I don't think you can promote the idea of freedom by doing such things, but that's only my personal POV. Apart from that nitpicking "forcing" vs. "repeatedly asking" I don't think my argumentation is full of "numerous errors" as you said. -- AdrianTM 00:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for better disambiguation (see Talk:Linux (disambiguation))

I think GNU/Linux should be the main operating system page, Linux (kernel) should be about the kernel, GNU/Linux naming controversy should remain as is, and in fact Linux should be a disambiguation page that points to all three, saying this: Linux either refers to GNU/Linux the operating system, also known as just Linux, or Linux the kernel. For more information on this disambiguation, you can read about the GNU/Linux naming controversy. --Chris Pickett 04:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I just discovered a 5th page, Linux (disambiguation). In my opinion, this should be moved to Linux. Please discuss at Talk:Linux (disambiguation). --Chris Pickett 04:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but there are many people that don't accept the silly GNU/Linux name including most of the kernel developers. In my opinion it's "Linux kernel" and "Linux OS" (or short: Linux) , that GNU/Linux is a political motivated name that is used by RMS fans because RMS asked people to use the name to promote his ideology -- it's not by any means a widely accepted name, for one thing you'll be hard pressed to find a instance in any serious publication. Doing what you propose is a clear POV pushing. -- AdrianTM 04:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Please let's just discuss this at Talk:Linux (disambiguation) where you can read my full proposal. I responded to you in another message that I'm not trying to push a particular POV. --Chris Pickett 05:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linux 0.12 under GNU GPL?

No, Linux 0.12 was certainly not released under the GNU General Public License. Linus Torvalds, the principal developer of Linux, just suggested switching to it. -- mms 01:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Linus Torvalds in the release notes of Linux 0.12: The Linux copyright will change: I've had a couple of requests to make it compatible with the GNU copyleft, removing the "you may not distribute it for money" condition. I agree. I propose that the copyright be changed so that it confirms to GNU - pending approval of the persons who have helped write code. I assume this is going to be no problem for anybody: If you have grievances ("I wrote that code assuming the copyright would stay the same") mail me. Otherwise The GNU copyleft takes effect as of the first of February.

[edit] Reverting of the table form

Ok, I spent at least an hour fixing that up, and I think it's way easier to read in table form. I was inspired by A Defense of Abortion which I consider beautifully formatted. I think article as you've reverted it is very difficult to read. Please consider letting the table form stand for a while so that others can see what it looks like. [2] Chris Pickett 04:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent major changes

User:Chris Pickett recently made several major changes to the article that I think are unwarranted, and in any case should have been discussed here first considering that this article has been fairly stable (and featured) for a long long time now.

First, it's not appropriate to format almost the entire article in the form of a table. Wikipedia (and standard encyclopedia) style, not to mention standard writing style in general with the exception of some legal and technical documents, is to use prose for the majority of discussion.
- Except that it wasn't prose, it was argument, quote, argument, quote, argument, quote. If you can provide a link to WP official policy that would be great. Chris Pickett 05:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Second, this article needs a 1-paragraph summary of the history, which is what it had and has. It can link to the Linux and GNU articles for more information, but (1) those articles are not focused on the connection between GNU, the Linux kernel, and complete systems (whatever "complete" means), and (2) the history is rather central to many of the arguments and needs to be summarized for the reader to comprehend what is going on.
- I merged that history into the Linux history, since it was 80% repetition. There are several people who agree that moving this article to GNU/Linux as an article solely about the name GNU/Linux is a good idea. From both sides of the fence. See Talk:Linux. Perhaps a much shorter summary of that history will do. Chris Pickett 05:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Third, as a minor point, the "pronunciation" section is a rather minor side issue and doesn't belong up front
- Okay, I was just following style I've seen in other articles (in fact, usually it's in the lead sentence). Chris Pickett 05:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've been working hard to sort out the GNU/Linux mess and just because an article has been in a totally unreadable format for a long time doesn't mean that's the best format. Please assume good faith here, I'm not an idiot.

—Steven G. Johnson 04:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

One thing that you need to realize is that this article has to stay unusually close to quotations, because the topic is so controversial among editors (witness the endless battles on Talk:Linux). Otherwise, it degenerates very quickly into a Slashdot-like thread with every editor inserting their pet arguments ("some people say..."), and indeed this is what happened with early versions of the article. Only by insisting that every argument be directly tied to a prominent commentator did the article become reasonably stable (and, according to the featured-article debate, at which point the article had pretty much the same structure and no one objected, "the NPOV tone is exemplary"). —Steven G. Johnson 03:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

There's no question that first paragraph of the history section is a summary of the longer history sections in Linux and GNU. However, this is standard practice in Wikipedia, as well as being common sense—we have a brief one-paragraph summary of information directly relevant to the present article, and link to the longer article for a more full description. I'm not sure why you think this is a problem. —Steven G. Johnson 03:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I do realize that it must stick to quotations, and I've seen the Talk:Linux arguing. Also, you're right, the history section is actually necessary to provide context. As I said above, I think what could help this page a lot is to move it to GNU/Linux; that would put an end to revert wars where wikilinks alternate between GNU/Linux and Linux, it would make GNU/Linux a featured article, and generally I think it would help to stamp out flame wars. There's that, plus the actual identification of arguments which I mention below. Chris Pickett 22:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Free Software Foundation?

I can't find any evidence on the FSF site that they officially promote the term GNU/Linux. Is it the GNU project that is meant here? Neither the GNU project nor Richard Stallman are the FSF. 80.233.255.7 18:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

One of the FAQ's is copyright the FSF. Chris Pickett 06:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Subections

Barring a table (bad idea according to Stevenj), I think breaking each section into subsections labelled with the argument being discussed would be very helpful and allow the reader to get a summary of all the arguments quickly. For example, you could have === The name Linux is ambiguous === as a subsection of Arguments for GNU/Linux, and move the corresponding discussion and quotes into that section. Presently the reader needs to read all the text and decipher the actual arguments. Chris Pickett 06:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

A subsection marker causes more harm than good if the subsections are too short, as they will be in this case (with one or two quotes and one or two sentences per subsection, I'm guessing). For readers wanting a summary, I would argue that the best thing is to have a good introductory paragraph to the sections summarizing the arguments. —Steven G. Johnson

Hi Steven. Thanks for your responses. I guess my biggest problem with the article is this: I often can't figure out what specific argument each particular quote actually makes. It is very he-said she-said and I'm kind of surprised that it made it to FA status. I think it should be possible to determine the precise argument(s) pertaining to each specific quote without introducing bias. Chris Pickett 21:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

To follow-up, I think \paragraph{<argument>} style formatting would work, e.g.:

GNU/Linux is not about RMS' personal ego. In response to suggestions that Stallman's renaming efforts stem from egotism or personal pique, RMS has responded that his interest is not in giving credit to himself, but to the GNU Project:

Some people think that it's because I want my ego to be fed. Of course, I'm not asking you to call it "Stallmanix".

Acceptable? I think a summary is also appropriate; this just helps identify the exact arguments at the particular location in the text. It also makes it clear where there is possibly extraneous text: for example, it seems to me that ", but to the GNU Project" above is described elsewhere and not supported by the quote. This is an example of where I get confused, trying to match up the article text with the precise quote text. (I also think counter-argument quotes like this should have matching original argument quotes, as well as follow-ups. To me, the inclusion of this quote alone is somewhat biased: there is quite possibly somebody notable who said that even though he doesn't want it to be Stallmanix, GNU still feeds RMS' ego since GNU was his creation.) Chris Pickett 00:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of a header, like a summary, is to let people quickly get the gist of a longer passage. In your example above, the only purpose of your bolded sentence seems to be to summarize the following sentence. Having one sentence summarize the next one is a little superfluous, don't you think?

It summarizes the sentence and the quote in seven words. Yes, it's a short example, but I think having a bolded summary like that for each individual argument in the article would sure make it easier to grasp what they all are in say, less than one minute. Don't you think?

Below, you are arguing "to avoid the redundancy where possible", and here you are arguing to summarize a longer sentence with a shorter one immediately preceding it. My head is spinning. =) Seriously, summaries at the beginning of a long section are good, but who uses a summary for an individual sentence? If you want a summary, why not propose a one-paragraph summary for the beginning of the section? —Steven G. Johnson 18:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for a single summary sentence for each sentence, and the example I chose was quite possibly the worst one possible. (I chose it because it was short---look where that got me.) Anyway, let's do something constructive. Here are the main arguments from the GNU/Linux section:

GNU is a larger technical contribution than Linux. (First sentence of quote 1 and quote 11.)
GNU project set out to make a complete OS. (Sentences 5 and 6 of quote 1.)
GNU idealism played an important role. (Quotes 2 and 3.)
GNU and Linux are necessary for complete Unix functionality. (Quotes 4 and 4.5---the one in the body text.)
Linux by itself is confusing. (Quotes 5, 6, 7, 8.)
GNU/Linux is not about RMS' personal ego. (Quote 9.)
GNU/Linux gives fair credit to the GNU project. (Quote 10.)

It took me 20 minutes to put this list together, and I've read the article a few times. It is even more clear to me now how these few short summary sentences in bold will serve readers; maybe they should even be === headings, but that's minor. I also might have missed something, I'd appreciate if you can comment. I realize now that there isn't actually a part that says it's explicitly about giving GNU credit, and that should be the first quote, even though it's bash-the-reader-over-the-head-obvious. ("I'm asking you to call it GNU [sic], because I want the GNU Project to get credit.") I also think that quote 1 should be split into two, so that the first argument in my list can be grouped with quote 11 and the second argument can be grouped with the last part of quote 1. Finally, I think quote 10 and its argument should be moved up to the top with the new "I want the GNU project to get credit." quote.

Here are the main arguments from the Linux section:

Linux is the most widespread name. (Quote 1.)
Linux is an older name. (There is no corresponding "the GNU project is actually older" argument, which would only be fair.)
Linux is shorter and easier to pronounce. (Pronunciation is a forward reference here...)
GNU Linux [sic] is only justified if GNU makes a Linux distribution. (First part of quote 2.)
GNU/Linux is about RMS' personal ego. (Quote 3.)
Linus thinks Linux is the right name. (Last part of quote 2, last part of quote 4.)
de facto argument: nomenclature is irrelevant. (First part of quote 4, quote 5, last sentence of quote 6.)
Claiming credit makes GNU look bad. (Quote 5.5, in the body text---should be a full quote.)
GNU is not a more important contribution. (First sentence of quote 6.)
Linux is a standard example of free software. (Pretty much the same as argument 1, should be grouped.)

This also took me 20 minutes. It's just not totally obvious. Did I miss anything? Here, I agree that summary sentences / subsection headers would be more difficult to apply as the article stands, but I also think that draws attention to the fact that some arguments need more weight given to them. (Ordered by priority, arguments 1, 3, 2.)

I'm just trying to make sense of this all. It's finely crafted and well-cited text, but I don't think it's particularly modular, and organizing it all by specific argument would help that. (I find the GNU/Linux section is better in this respect.) Chris Pickett 21:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "but to the GNU project" being "not supported by the quote", this is obviously what RMS meant in context (where he explicitly says, "I'm asking you to call it GNU, because I want the GNU Project to get credit."). Whenever we quote a short passage from a longer source it is our obligation to put the passage in context.

I still think it's better to avoid the redundancy where possible, since giving credit to GNU is the primary argument for GNU/Linux and already made elsewhere.

Above, you were saying it's "not supported" by the quote, which means that this point was not obvious to you from the quote...this is precisely why we need to provide that context here (which is explicitly in the original source as I mentioned) in order to clearly convey what the speaker meant: he was making a distinction between credit to himself (Stallman) and to the project (GNU) which he started, a distinction that not everyone sees or agrees with. —Steven G. Johnson

Yes, see above, that argument is so important it needs its own quote. Chris Pickett 21:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If you can find a prominent commentator who has responded to RMS's "Stallmanix" quip (which itself is in response to remarks like the Linux Journal editorial we already quote...), please let us know so that we can include a reference to this response, if it seems appropriate. —Steven G. Johnson 21:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, basically I think there are some quotes that aren't really worth including, this one about Stallmanix being one of them: Stallman arguing that it's not about his ego just because it isn't called Stallmanix isn't the most sound argument, but I suppose that's just my opinion. On the other side, I'd argue that Linus saying it would be appropriate for it to be called GNU Linux if the GNU project actually produced its own Linux distribution is quite clearly disingenuous, again my opinion. On an off-topic note, I'm as much an editor as you, and "please let us know so that we can include a reference" isn't particularly welcoming. Chris Pickett 09:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The reason I included the Stallmanix quip is because it was the only place I could find where Stallman directly responds to the accusation (which we include) that "GNU/Linux" is mainly an ego thing. Can you find a better quote? I'm not sure it's our place to decide whether his rejoinder is convincing or not. —Steven G. Johnson 18:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I looked through the first page of hits on Stallmanix but nothing much. Chris Pickett 21:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New "Arguments for neither" section

There seem to be some quotes that suggest the whole naming controversy is a waste of time, and I don't think they should be lumped into the Arguments for Linux section. The one with Linus saying personally I'll very much continue to call it Linux is such a quote (unless you count it as an Argument for Linux by Appeal to Penguin Authority, which, um, isn't exactly good), and there's another one about the community wasting too much time on nomenclature. Chris Pickett 06:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

An argument that the controversy is a waste of time is an argument for maintaining the status quo, and thus is de facto an argument for "Linux". (Indeed, it's quite a strong argument from a certain point of view, since most language is an somewhat arbitrary consequence of history and convention, and English contains any number of usages that are rather illogical but are too entrenched to change.) —Steven G. Johnson 03:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point. Chris Pickett 21:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quote attribution

I think each quote should end with (full name, organization, year), before the reference. Some of them already do, but not all. I had this in my latest revision, in fact, you can dig out the info from there. (Don't revert, it has the tables which are no good.) Chris Pickett 06:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

This is essentially Harvard referencing, and used to be the convention in the article, but was switched when the article was moved to the new <ref> numbered-endnote notation. However, I totally agree that the information should be added back into the text of the article at least in any place where it isn't clear who is saying what. —Steven G. Johnson 03:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a combination of two systems would be good, per Finnish Civil War. Each reference actually contains several arguments, and a seperate footnotes section that maps quotes in the article to full references would be useful. Chris Pickett 22:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maybe...

Maybe GiNUx ? AtomicZero 04:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

or GNUX, (pronounced nuks) "Building Viewing Using computers in GNU & Linuxiting ways" i've made graphics for it too

gnux overlay

gnux 2

gnux caption

these images are designed to appeal to a new user, informing them and becoming a recognisable conjunction, easily reffered to in one syllable without destroying the derivatively decipherable terms recognisable by experienced users. oh, and you can have my images under gfdl ok?

Michael hatton 09:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BSD advertising clause

Someone inserted a long quotation regarding RMS's well-known opposition to the BSD advertising clause into the "Arguments for Linux" section, implying that he is somehow contradicting himself. I removed it because:

First, it is unsourced. While no one disputes that RMS opposes the BSD advertising clause, there was no citation of any prominent commentator using this as an argument for "Linux". This article is not for editors to insert their own arguments, whether good or bad; otherwise the article degenerates quickly into a Slashdot thread. We must stick closely to arguments that can be sourced to prominent commentators.

Second, the argument is obviously fallacious. RMS argued against BSD's legal requirement of credit in advertising materials (on practical grounds), not against giving credit in general; he has never advocated that people be legally required to use the "GNU/Linux" name.

—Steven G. Johnson 02:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I've found several people arguing that this is hypocritical. I don't know if you think Terry Hancock is notable enough for Wikipedia or not, but there may be other more "notable" sources that have the same opinion. [3] Chris Pickett 03:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Certainly Theo de Raadt is notable (and relevant to this particular argument) [4] Chris Pickett 03:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

And if it's unfair to quote this BSD-related passage from RMS, I don't think quoting Linus in the "Arguments for GNU/Linux" section is appropriate either: it's quite clear he doesn't support the name, and he wasn't making an argument for GNU/Linux. Or maybe it's better to include both as examples of perceived hypocrisy. Chris Pickett 04:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

de Raadt is certainly notable, but the link you cite doesn't mention the advertising clause per se—it is a vague accusation (without citing any evidence) that the FSF "nearly goes out of their way to avoid citing others". Terry Hancock is not nearly so famous, nor is the source you linked (a random response to a blog post).

It was in a thread about GNU/Linux and I figured it was fairly obvious from the BSD context, but I also agree it isn't the best source. Chris Pickett 08:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say that quoting RMS per se was inappropriate—quoting anyone is fine to establish facts or if the quotes directly reflect on prominent arguments. However, all I was saying was that we shouldn't quote someone to make our own arguments, but rather to illustrate arguments that appear in prominent sources. The Torvalds quotes reflect directly on the FSF's explicit argument that a kernel is only a small part of a complete system, and hence they are clearly relevant. In a similar way, if RMS ever said "I admit, GNU/Linux is awfully inconvenient to say" this would reflect directly one of the common arguments for "Linux" and would therefore be relevant to quote.

Well, I don't really think it was an admission that Linux was possibly not a good name on Linus' part, and everybody's going to agree on facts. Anyway, whatever, it's fine. Chris Pickett 08:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If someone prominent indeed made this argument about the BSD clause, or someone writing in a citable source (e.g. a magazine or other publication), we should definitely mention it. However, we also have an obligation to mention that it implies an obvious distortion of Stallman's position: RMS has never argued against giving credit in general (and indeed, every license requires that the copyright holders' names be preserved), only against the legal requirement in advertising materials, nor has he ever argued that people be legally required to use the name "GNU/Linux". We have an obligation to report arguments made by prominent commentators, but neither should unambiguously misleading/nonsensical arguments be reported uncritically.

—Steven G. Johnson 07:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it is obviously not what RMS is arguing for, but I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to accuse him of wanting to have his cake and eat it too by going around insisting on GNU/Linux everywhere (along with many devoted followers) while also insisting that this not be legally enforceable. It's your opinion that it's nonsensical; it's my opinion that it's not. Chris Pickett 08:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The cornerstone of a free society is that we believe others have the legal right to express opinions that we disagree with. ("I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.") Saying that RMS is somehow hypocritical to simultaneously argue for "GNU/Linux" and yet not try to legally enforce this name is rejecting that cornerstone. In fact, it is implying that everyone who believes in freedom of speech is a hypocrite—how dare we disagree with someone's opinion, and yet not try to outlaw their expressing it! Surely, that's not really what you think?

It's not the "not trying to enforce it"---it's insisting that others not be able to enforce something, yet going around insisting on almost that exact same thing (i.e. credit) without a legal document, and essentially obtaining it through brow-beating. And I don't necessarily fully agree either---it just doesn't strike me as non-sensical. Like I said, the non-sensicality is your opinion. Chris Pickett 09:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Even if that is your opinion, can we find a prominent commentator making that argument?

Not yet, I only tried for 10 minutes. Anyway, I give up for a while. Really time to See You Later now :) Chris Pickett 09:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

—Steven G. Johnson 09:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New arguments from Alan Cox

I also found some arguments against GNU/Linux from Alan Cox. [5] Chris Pickett 03:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

His main point seems to be that, "Linux [the kernel] is not and never has been an FSF project. I would say the majority of the kernel developers don't buy the FSF political agenda." I'm not sure that this is worth quoting because there is no controversy on this point—the FSF and Stallman have explicitly agreed that the Linux kernel itself is not a part of GNU. And our article already makes this point in several places.

If we want to quote Alan Cox, I think there are other posts where he talks about the GNU/Linux naming issue in more detail (whereas this post is mainly about kernel licensing). It is well-known that Cox advocates the "Linux" name for Linux-based systems. For example, see this post (to be fair, RMS responded directly in another post). The only question in my mind is whether this exchange adds any substantially new arguments or new information that we do not already summarize. —Steven G. Johnson 08:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

In general I think threads where Stallman and other notable people have commented directly are worth linking to, if not necessarily quoting from.

I apologize for not explaining myself. As far as I see it, Cox's main argument is that there is no such entity even called GNU/Linux, and hence the whole Linux kernel GPLv3 uproar really has nothing to do with the FSF, and Linux isn't splitting from the FSF or anything like that at all. This is an argument that GNU/Linux causes confusion by associating GNU with the Linux kernel. (c.f. arguments about SCO confusing the OS and kernel). There is a second argument that he mentions parenthetically: it is a trademark issue. I don't see either of these arguments in the article text. Chris Pickett 08:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it's an interesting counterpoint: he's saying that using the term "GNU/Linux" confuses the FSF with issues solely to do with the kernel. (And indeed, the FSF has been quick to make a similar point, that the kernel licensing has nothing to do with it or the rest of the GNU software.)

Regarding his statement that there is no such entity as "GNU/Linux", that seems to be more a statement of his conviction/conclusion than an argument per se...he doesn't really explain or justify it. (Obviously combinations of the GNU components with the Linux kernel exist; his opinion is clearly that this should not be considered an "entity" or named "GNU/Linux", but stating so isn't an argument. Nor does he intend it as one, probably...his main point in the posting seems to be to make clear that the FSF is not involved with the kernel.) —Steven G. Johnson 09:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting article by Hans Reiser

I thought this was sarcastic at first but apparently he's serious! [6] Chris Pickett 03:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a well-known part of Reiser's philosophy, I think. This is a guy who named a filesystem after himself, and if I remember correctly advocated naming components after their major developers. He chips in on the FSF's behalf, "When Richard Stallman isn't even mentioned on the box as an author because doing so does not further the mindshare capture effort of the distro, well, this is just wrong." However, this is the extent of his comments on the issues, and merely saying that something is "just wrong" doesn't add much more than a "me too". I'm not sure it's worth quoting. —Steven G. Johnson 07:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I just thought it was interesting because on one hand you have RMS saying it's not about ego, and on the other you have Hans Reiser calling it GNU/Linux and saying, "Why should it be about anything but ego?" I don't say I agree personally, but I also find it's a much nicer defense to a criticism of egotism than, "I'm not egotistic (gr?), this is why." Chris Pickett 08:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relevant Slashdot thread on GNU/Linux FAQ

This is an important link as readers can refer to a wide variety of opinions from the community. [7] Chris Pickett 03:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

We already link to a Slashdot thread on this topic...does this really add much new? —Steven G. Johnson 07:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

(It seems to me that Slashdot ceased to represent a broad cross-section of the Linux-using community a long time ago...) —Steven G. Johnson

The thread I found was a direct response to the GNU/Linux FAQ right after it was posted. I actually think it's worth having an introduction that talks about the FAQ, and then links to the Slashdot response to it, as well as any direct response mailing list threads with prominent commentators. Regardless of whether Slashdot represents a broad cross-section or not (I'm inclined to agree with you; you don't see a lot of posts from hackers there, importantly), the sheer number of comments means that just about every argument for/against is brought up, and that it is probably quite useful to a reader. There are many posts that specifically address the different parts of the FAQ, which is why I think it should be included. I would say the GNU/Linux FAQ represents an even less broad cross-section, but obviously it's important here... Chris Pickett 08:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The GNU/Linux FAQ does not represent a cross-section, nor do we present it as such. It represents the opinions of one prominent commentator: the FSF. (Why do you think we need an section specifically addressing the FAQ, as opposed to simply quoting/citing it when it says something relevant? Are there substantial arguments in the FAQ that we don't address?)

I think the FAQ is worth referring to properly because it is the key position paper of RMS and the FSF.

We have to be cautious about online forums of self-selected posters. As a gauge of public opinion, such forums are notoriously unreliable. As a source of information, the same could be said. Is it really helpful to readers to direct them to postings by a bunch of random people of no particular notability, many of whom might be misinformed, in a forum (Slashdot) notorious for flaming one-liners and off-the cuff thoughtless posting (since Slashdot moderation tends to reward earlier posters)? On the other hand, we already link one Slashdot thread, so I suppose we might as well link both at the same time. —Steven G. Johnson 08:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I do agree with you about the Slashdot mentality. Nevertheless, it's an interesting read; individually, these people may not be notable, but 1040 comments is more than any other single discussion on the subject that you'll find on the internet. Chris Pickett 08:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added the link. In what way do we not refer to the FAQ properly? —Steven G. Johnson 08:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"The complete position of RMS and the FSF is detailed in the GNU/Linux FAQ.<ref>...</ref> This lead to a direct response from the Slashdot readership.<ref>...</ref>" I have to go to bed, but it's been nice chatting with you. I'd actually just like to make some edits to the article (I don't really believe it would survive an FA review), but I'm focusing on Linux right now. I also have a lot of work to do these days, that is way more thesis-completion important than editing WP, so it's pretty unlikely that I will get to it. In fact, I don't even really know what I'm doing here right now, I guess it's just nice to find somebody coherent and moderately even-tempered. If I disappear, at least this all got recorded on this discussion page. Take care, Chris Pickett 09:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say the primary position of RMS is laid out in his essay "Linux and the GNU system"; the FAQ is a supplement.

Linking to a response by Slashdot readers under further reading is one thing. I don't think we should reference it in the text of the article. It's simply not a reputable source by any stretch of the imagination. Imagine a historian asking, "Who is anonymous coward and why should I care what she says?" —Steven G. Johnson 09:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that everything should get a full reference---do you write papers with "Further reading" sections? If you count anthropologists as historians, then sure, I can imagine that. I can already imagine anthropologists trying learn about common people based on fairly anonymous wikipedia edits... Chris Pickett 09:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New arguments from Larry McVoy

"GNU" includes X and TeX as well, and also Hurd should really be Linux/Hurd. [8] Chris Pickett 03:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

That argument is already noted in the article, and illustrated with a (much more eloquently phrased) quote from Jim Gettys. —Steven G. Johnson 07:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

IMO that argument is different. He says two things in that post: 1) GNU shouldn't get credit for X and TeX just by lumping them in as official parts of the GNU project. 2) Since the Hurd kernel uses Linux drivers, it's hypocritical not to call it Linux/Hurd. Chris Pickett 08:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Already addressed in the article: "Many users and vendors who prefer the name Linux point to the inclusion of non-GNU, non-kernel tools such as the Apache HTTP Server, the X Window System or the K Desktop Environment in end-user operating systems based on the Linux kernel." Of course, we can keep adding things to the list, like TeX, but I don't think it adds to the point, do you? On the other hand, it certainly wouldn't hurt to add more citations, like the McAvoy post, to this sentence to give examples of prominent adherents of this sort of opinion. See also here and here.

The FSF's argument counter-argument is also quoted: that the name of the "primary" contribution should come first, and that they have no objection to adding more names afterwards but that at some point it has to be truncated for practicality. Of course, the FSF think that the GNU part is primary, and some others think that the Linux kernel is primary, and some (like Gettys) argue that it doesn't matter anymore.

—Steven G. Johnson 08:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not the point. The argument is that GNU itself actually officially includes things the FSF did not write, but the FSF still calls them GNU and takes credit for them. GNU doesn't officially include KDE or Apache but it does officially include X and TeX. And I think the Linux/Hurd argument is interesting as well (and I did not know about it either). Chris Pickett 08:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It's no different. The FSF does not claim that X11 or TeX are produced by the GNU project. It uses them as part of what they consider to be a GNU system. The FSF also uses the Linux kernel as part of what they consider to be a GNU system, but does not claim that the kernel is a GNU project. In both cases, it says that the GNU name should come first, but has no objection to calling it GNU/Linux/X11 or whatever. Whether you agree with this argument is another matter, of course.

Regarding the relationship between the Hurd and the Linux kernel, doubtless they would argue that the Hurd is the primary component, hence the name. Note that the Hurd also uses Mach, which was made at CMU (although there is talk of switching to L4). Do we really want to get into the composition of the Hurd here, though? If we go into the Hurd, after all, should we also talk about the zillions of other FLOSS software that incorporates bits and pieces from other programs? This is not an article about the naming of software in general... —Steven G. Johnson 08:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FAR

Violates 1a for being too complicated, 1d for putting gnu/linux first, 1e because it is a long time since 2004 and the article has changed greatly, and all of 2 (2a,2b,2c). I tried to nominate the article anonymously twice and failed so registered, but I don't know how to fix it. Qwertydvorak 03:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/n/u/Talk%7EGNU_Linux_naming_controversy_7c39.html"