When a pilot "loses the horizon," it's a disorienting, unnerving
experience that can mean real trouble without a calm head. When
Brian Proffitt got "the mail" from Richard Stallman asking that he
adopt the phrase "GNU/Linux," he had the same feeling. Here he
offers a history and examination of an old controversy, notes why
RMS has a point, and explains that no matter where you land on this
one, it's important to keep sight of the horizon.
Somewhere along this whole free software vs. open
source timeline, Stallman decided that it would be just and proper
for Linux (the operating system, not the kernel) to be renamed to
GNU/Linux. This is a cause that, like many of his other beliefs,
Stallman pursues with a tenacity and determination. This
combination tends to, frankly, piss people off. It could easily be
said that many of the objections to Stallman's arguments are
knee-jerk reactions personality conflicts and nothing more.
But here is what Stallman wants: the chance to have credit for
the FSF's GNU operating system, which he firmly believes was
completed with the Linux kernel. And with that name change, the
ability to promote the real enemy of Microsoft: the GNU Project and
the GPL.
That was the topic of the e-mail to me last week, in response to
my column last week arguing about providing Microsoft with a
rational front. Along the way, I teased the FSF about their
tendency to e-mail everyone they can about the importance of free
software. I don't apologize for it; everyone could use a gentle
tweak on the nose from time to time, because people and
organizations that take themselves too seriously are likely to
implode under their own weight. Still, I got what I deserved when
Stallman wrote me to point out that Microsoft did not really fear
Linux, but rather the GPL. He also asked me personally to begin to
use the term GNU/Linux in my work. And that's where the abyss
loomed.