[pp.int.general] Master's thesis | derailed

[Patrick Godschalk]

Sure, I agree that if people want to give credit, GNU/Linux is usually
the appropriate name. I do not agree though, that using "GNU/Linux" is
confusing. In fact, in every day speech, consistently pronouncing it as
"Gnoo-slash-linux" is only more confusing.

Lets say I'm trying to convince someone to install Debian (with the
Linux kernel), my distribution of choice. If I tell someone "hey, you
should install Debian" or "hey, you should install Linux", most people
will know what Linux is and what I'm talking about. Referring to it as
"Debian Gnoo Slash Linux" all the time, however, will just get confusing
to the person you're trying to convince to switch to free software. "Is
it Debian, this Gnoo thing, or Linux? I don't know, oh to hell with it,
I give up."

And yes, this happens. The very second you start to sound confusing when
trying to convince someone - they won't do it. In other words, they
stick with what they know, usually their trusty non-free operating
systems, indirectly hurting the free software movement. When I say, "who
cares", I'm not talking about giving credit to GNU. Of course I do. But
I care more about people actually using free software, than I do about
crediting the GNU project, or any project. Sure, I'm glad to have gcc
instead of still screwing around with AIX (oh god) but gcc is still
irrelevant to people on Windows, for example.

This not only applies to everyday speech though, but to writing as well.
A lot of Pirate Parties are dependent on press releases - and the press
knows full well, that readers have a short attention span these days,
hence trying to make articles as simple to read as possible. That
usually means using everyday speech; in which people just shorthand
pretty much everything. People say photoshopped, rather than "enhanced
with Adobe(r) Photoshop(r) Elements(r)";  aspirin rather than
paracetamol; Windows rather than "Microsoft(r) Windows(r); and Linux
rather than GNU/Linux.

So again, "who cares", or rather "what do we actually care about as a
free software movement"? The accreditation of GNU by using GNU/Linux,
and if so, why stop there and just credit every upstream packager
included by default in a distribution? Or do we just want to promote
free software and be as non-confusing as possible which with most people
involves - correct or not - the common usage of the term "Linux". As
I've explained above, you can't really have it both ways.

And, as to what is actually formally correct; that would be how the
distribution you're referring to names itself. For example, Debian
GNU/Linux, but Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Why? Both the Linux kernel and
most of the GNU userland are licensed with the (A)GPL which requires
using the copyright monopoly, to not remove accreditation of the authors
in the actual source, but has no such mention of the name. (In fact,
it's usually encouraged to change the name of a program when forking to
avoid confusion, and distribution packages usually differ from
upstream.)

Sigh. One of these days I'm just going to create a distribution with the
Linux kernel and consisting of entirely free software, but without the
GNU userland. Just for laughs when the FSF gets to endorse "Argure
Linux". :P
-- 
Patrick Godschalk
patrick.godschalk at piratenpartij.nl
GPG: <https://argure.nl/identity/ecc14958.asc>
This e-mail falls under the CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication.