essay

[bruce@Pixar.com (Bruce Perens)]

For your comment.

	Bruce
                       What comes after GNU?
                    Bruce Perens <perens@hams.com>

12 years ago, Richard Stallman formed the Free Software Foundation and
the GNU project. His premise was that _all_ software should be free,
and his project to realize this goal was to build a free version of
Unix called the GNU system. The GNU project was wildly successful in
that it spawned a number of programs that are almost universaly
available.  Perhaps the most important of them are GNU Emacs and the
GNU C compiler, but there are many others. A key feature of the GNU
software license, the "Copyleft", was that software could be used and
distributed by anyone, even people who did not agree every aspect with
the GNU philosophy, as long as they abided by the terms of the
license.

The GNU system as it will eventually be released is based on an
operating system kernel called HURD. However, in the 12 years that have
passed since the inception of the GNU project other free operating
system kernels have come about, including free versions of the Unix
kernel developed by the University of California at Berkeley and Linux,
a free Unix clone written by Linus Torvalds. It was inevitable that
free Unix systems would develop around these kernels. These free systems
contain critical components that were developed by the GNU project,
and at Berkeley, and by many other contributors.

Now, the question arises, what do we call these systems? They are
outgrowths of the GNU system because they contain software written for
the GNU project. Of course they also contain software from many other
sources. However, whether or not they should be called GNU depends more
on the philosophy behind the system than on its component parts.

The various free systems built around BSD and Linux were built
independently of FSF's management, while Richard Stallman personaly
directs the development of the GNU system. Because of this, it's not
necessarily correct to call a Linux or BSD system "GNU" because it does
not represent the plans of the GNU project for its own free operating
system. A fundamental tenet of the GNU philosophy is that _all_
software should be free. To misrepresent a BSD or Linux system as "GNU"
might eventually cause damage to the public perception of "GNU", as a
true GNU system could be confused with a number of GNU derivatives that
actually contain non-free software, and depart from the GNU vision on
other technical and philosophical issues as well.

Many BSD and Linux developers are software professionals who derive
their entire income from writing non-free software, and write free
software for fun. These professionals don't have a problem with some
software being free and some being non-free, even though this is in
conflict with the GNU philosophy. For the most part, they
have created hybrid GNU-and-non-GNU systems. For example, the Debian
Linux system (with which I am involved) is based on a core that must
be entirely free software, and is distributed along with non-free
accessories that can be installed or ignored according to the user's
own preferences. The design of the GNU software in Debian is according
to FSF's wishes, however the design of other components of Debian and
some of its underlying philosophy go directly against the decisions of
FSF as they were communicated to me by Richard Stallman. Should I
call Debian a "GNU" system when it is clearly _not_ what FSF intends?

For this reason, the Debian developers have chosen to call their system
"Debian Linux" instead of "Debian GNU/Linux", the name we used when we
operated under FSF's supervision. We are very careful to give attribution
to the GNU system as a predecessor of Debian, and all software components
that are the property of FSF mention that fact in the copyright statements
that we distribute along with them.

However, simply removing the "GNU" name from the system may not adequately
communicate our homage to the GNU idea and the fact that our system, while
not officially condoned by FSF or the GNU project, is a GNU descendent.
I would like to communicate that both the system philosophy and the system
itself are derived from GNU. I'd also like to communicate the differences
between the system and GNU - for example, the fact that we approve of
vendors building commercial software components to run on top of Debian,
and that we don't follow the technical decisions handed down by the GNU
project.

The best name I've been able to find to communicate this so far is to label
Debian a "post-GNU" system. This indicates that GNU is its predecessor and
at the same time indicates a departure from GNU. In the future we could
write a "post-GNU Manifesto" to indicate more clearly what our direction is.
For now, I'd summarize it with the following few sentences: We have a
continuing allegiance to the idea of free software, along with a willingness
to live with non-free software that is marketed as an accessory or application
to run on top of our entirely-free Unix system. Post-GNU systems are built
without the direct supervision or approval of FSF, but contain GNU components.
FSF continues to work on, and may eventually release, what they perceive to
be the true GNU system.
--
     Clinton isn't perfect, but I like him a whole lot more than Dole.

Bruce Perens AB6YM          Bruce@Pixar.com            http://www.hams.com/