The four freedoms and GNU/Linux naming controversy, by Akira Urushibata
Akira Urushibata recently wrote to libreplanet-discuss, which hadn't been active for 2 months (he was the last person to write to it back in November). His latest message is a bit like an article and it was approved by moderators about 4 days after it had posted to the mailing list.
Today we reproduce it:
The four freedoms and GNU/Linux naming controversy
In the book "Just for Fun: The Story of an Accidental Revolutionary" which describes the creation of Linux, Linus Torvalds claims Richard Stallman caused him trouble by demanding credit on the grounds that GNU tools were used to develop Linux [1].
We members of the Libreplanet mailing list know the difference between the kernel and the OS. It appears to me that many people - not only ordinary folk but also professional engineers - are not aware of the distinction.
Torvalds claimed that he had developed a UNIX-like operating system [2]. Stallman reasoned that the OS needed a separate, distinct name and he desired one that reflected the fact that many of the crucial components were from the GNU project. But to people unaware of the fact that a kernel is not an OS, it appeared that after Torvalds had decided upon the name for his creation [3], a guy called Stallman came up and tried to force him into changing that. If it were true, I'd consider that extremely rude.
This is an important point. If I am mistaken, please tell me so [4].
Although most everybody nowadays has heard the word "OS", few actually know what an OS actually does. People know that Microsoft has a product called "Windows" and that it is an "OS." But few can explain what it accomplishes beyond providing a standard which developers and consumers recognize. I believe that this condition is mostly a product of Microsoft's marketing strategy.
Try to tell someone with but a hazy grasp of the "operating system" to distinguish between the entire system and a component thereof. The likely outcome is that shoulders are shrugged and the request is ignored. To make matters worse, among educators and technology writers who need to make the distinction to do their jobs, there are many who can't. The issue betrays their ignorance and makes them uncomfortable. When one discovers one's own shortcomings the right thing to do is to take remedial action, in this case by investigating the issue. In reality many fail to do so and at worst, feign knowledge by parroting phrases which spread confusion [5].
Failure on the part of Stallman and his supporters to recognize the widespread ignorance, the associated uncomfortable feelings, and the response created thereby contributed to failure in getting people accept "GNU/Linux." I think we should recognize this.
Why do we GNU/Linux supporters know about the difference between the kernel and the OS? That is because we understand the four freedoms promoted by Richard Stallman.
Linux kernel development began as a student's hobby. In contrast GNU was created with an intent to help society by making available an OS which provides the four freedoms.
When Stallman told people to call the entire OS "GNU/Linux" the reason he gave was that the GNU project contributed greatly to the system's realization. An quantitative analysis of the contribution appeared among the GNU philosophy articles but its effect was limited [6]. Instead he should have brought up the four freedoms [7]. Getting facts wrong is detrimental to one's own freedom. An engineer with insufficient freedom tasked with solving a problem runs the risk of implementing a solution which is not ideal: it may turn out to be ineffective, costly, hazardous or all three at once. Stallman should have said: "I'm telling you to use the right term because I care about you and wish that you do your job well."
I recognize another issue. Many people do not have the freedom to modify programs simply because they can't read computer code. Even experienced programmers cannot read all of the code with so many programming languages in existence: one can modify some programs, but not all. GNU/Linux is based on UNIX. To be proficient in UNIX one has to master several languages including c, shell, awk and make. There is much to learn. Some people consider this beyond their means and give up before getting an idea of how UNIX really works [8]. Thus even among programmers, educators and journalists there are many who fail to understand the functions of kernel. A clear picture of the boundaries is not easy to attain.
Stallman has not been helpful in this regard. I have not once seen him encouraging students to patiently study UNIX until a firm grasp of its design principles is acquired. Instead he has been telling students to study Lisp [9]. He has also instructed users to keep the Emacs editor running throughout the session and has vented frustration toward those who failed to obey. It is true that Emacs is rich in functionality and can do a great many things, but that is the exact opposite of the UNIX principle of "Do one thing and do it well."
Because I am aware of the above, I can suggest some measures which would serve as antidotes.
One path to people's enlightenment is to remind them that the language of the computer is important, and proceed with the question:
Do you know the language of Linux? Maybe you know that "Linux" belongs to the UNIX family. What is the language of UNIX? What are the features of the language?
Another approach is stating the four freedoms, and discussing what the Linux kernel does in their regard:
How much freedom does one get with just the Linux kernel? Suppose the kernel and nothing else is written in binary in a hard disk device of a typical PC. Can one get the program running?
(The answer is no.)
Suppose that somehow one can get Linux running in the above setup. Can one instruct Linux to make a copy of Linux?
(Also no.) Can you modify the program?
(No again.)
With GNU/Linux the user has the four freedoms. He can do any of the above.
Whether the four freedoms are put in context or not makes a big difference in how the fundamentals are perceived.
And perhaps we should try to get more people know basic facts like this:
The Linux kernel is one program. It is a "monolithic" design. UNIX is composed of many programs. So are MS-DOS and Windows.
I also believe that it is important to remind people that they are getting something useful for free. When you get something good for free, you say thanks. Gratitude is important. In its absence bad things happen [10]. For one thing men lose track of what they are capable of and what they aren't.
I notice that there is increased awareness of the functions of the OS. This is happening because people are urged to upgrade to Windows 11 but it comes with several features that make the upgrade not desirable. There are concerns that certain programs may become impossible to execute because of an accident [11] or perhaps through deliberate policy. Ordinary people are now speaking about this. People are realizing that ignorance comes at a cost [12].
I believe people who want to make better choices would be pleased to learn that someone has been preaching about software freedom for decades and there exists a body of thought that anyone interested is welcome to study.
---
[1] Just for Fun: The Story of an Accidental Revolutionary Linus Torvalds, David Diamond First published January 1, 2001
https://goodreads.com/book/show/160171.Just_for_Fun
[2] "Wikinomics" by D. Tapscott and A.D. Williams says so. This highly influential book work does not mention GNU.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/154341.Wikinomics http://www.wikinomics.com/
In some contexts the kernel is the operating system. This position is not widely supported and ordinary computers would have a hard time accepting the idea because the "OS" as such is very different from MS Windows and Mac OS.
[3] I've read that Torvalds had plans to develop a complete OS on his own, one not as sophisticated as GNU. But this project did not get very far largely because within a few years personal computers became powerful enough to run GNU systems. One episode symbolic of the attempt to make Linux a full-fledged OS was the libc fork.
[4] To list members who wish to discuss this: please clarify whether you have actually read "Just for Fun." If any evidence to the contrary of my position on the matter exists, please provide the source.
[5] The calculation that an enthusiast's hobby OS would never be the equal of proprietary products considering the vast resources spent developing the latter may be the reason for this lax attitude.
[6] I can't locate this article. I'd like to know if it is still available.
I understand that this is an attempt to measure something that is difficult to measure. The result will vary depending on whether Emacs is considered a standard OS component or not. Similarly, nowadays the default kernels of popular distros are bloated with device drivers of rare hardware, support for exotic file systems, etc.
[7] Stallman spoke in length on this point. One example: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/linux-gnu-freedom.html
Unfortunately, at least some people perceived it to be an effort to make people give credit to him by promoting the name "GNU/Linux". In a way the efforts to justify promoting the name worked against him.
[8] One can learn the basic features of Awk in a weekend. Make takes much effort to learn because GNU's implementation added many features. The basics of the popular Bash shell can be mastered within weeks but it too has many additional features which may require some time to learn. With GNU make and Bash an important skill is understanding what features are GNU extensions.
[9] I have observed that a common question is: "What language should we study?"
[10] "The Analects" Taibo 2 https://ctext.org/analects/tai-bo#n1290
When one observes the kind of misfortune that Stallman has experienced the above passage come to mind.
[11] See for example the following article, by a publication for the commons:
Microsoft Teams down LIVE as Office 365 platform suffers major outage - World News - Mirror Online https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/microsoft-teams-down-live-office-36431910
[12] See for example the following article on the "rental economy":
Nothing Is Ours Anymore: Is the "Rental Economy" the Most Destructive Scam in US Capitalism? https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/12/29/2360514/-Nothing-Is-Ours-Anymore-Is-the-Rental-Economy-the-Most-Destructive-Scam-in-US-Capitalism
---
Thank you for reading.
Akira Urushibata
Social control media owned and run by 'broligarchs' keeps attacking RMS for insisting on names that include GNU, but we won't link to these, only make this observation. Follow the money. █