|
A '''controvérsia quanto à nomenclatura GNU/Linux''' é uma disputa entre membros da comunidade de [[software livre]] e [[opencódigo sourceaberto]]. É centrada em torno da denominação do [[núcleo de sistema operacional]] de informática comumente chamado "[[Linux]]", e a vontade de utilizar esta nomenclatura como um termo genérico para tudo relacionado ao mesmo. O termo defendido pela [[Free Software Foundation]] (FSF), enquantopara outrosrelacionar proponenteso argumentamnúcleo quedo osistema termocom corretoas paraferramentas softwaresdesenvolvidas livrespela dofundação mesmo tipoGNU seria ''GNU/Linux''.
<!--
== História ==
Planos para o [[sistema operacional GNU]] foram feitos em [[1983]] por [[Richard Stallman]], fundador da [[Free Software Foundation]]. Em setembro daquele ano, Stallman publicou um manifesto no ''Dr. Dobbs's Journal'' detalhando publicamente seu projeto e esboçando sua visão do [[software livre]]. O trabalho de desenvolvimento do programa teve início em [[janeiro]] de [[1984]]. O GNU seria um sistema operacional completo [[Unix-like]], composto inteiramente de software livre. Em [[1991]], os trechos em GNU de nível médio do sistema estavam quase prontos; o nível superior seria providenciado pelo X Window System, mas o nível inferior ([[kernel]], device drivers, utilidades de sistema e daemons) ainda
Plans for the [[GNU operating system]] were made in 1983 by [[Richard Stallman]], founder of the [[Free Software Foundation]]. In September of that year, Stallman published a manifesto in ''[[Dr. Dobb's Journal]]'' detailing his new project publicly, and outlining his vision of [[free software]]. Software development work began in January 1984. GNU was to be a complete [[Unix-like]] operating system composed entirely of free software. By 1991, the GNU mid-level portions of the operating system were almost complete, and the upper level could be supplied by the X Window System, but the lower level ([[kernel (computer science)|kernel]], device drivers, system-level utilities and daemons) was still mostly lacking. The GNU kernel, [[GNU Hurd]], was still in its infancy. The Hurd followed an ambitious design which proved unexpectedly difficult to implement and has only been marginally usable.
In 1991, the first version of the Linux kernel was released by [[Linus Torvalds]]. Early Linux kernel developers [[porting|ported]] GNU code, including the [[GNU C Compiler]], to run on Linux. Later, when the GNU developers learned of Linux, they adapted other parts of GNU to run on the Linux kernel. This work filled the remaining gaps in running a completely free operating system.
Over the next few years, there were a number of suggestions for how to name operating systems using the Linux kernel and GNU components. In 1992, the [[Yggdrasil Linux]] distribution adopted the name "Linux/GNU/X". In [[Usenet]] and mailing-list discussions, one can find usages of "GNU/Linux" as early as 1992<ref>{{cite newsgroup
|url=http://groups.google.com/group/comp.unix.misc/msg/698d1e2b49c5854e
|title=Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Alpha release Linux/GNU/X ...
|newsgroup=comp.unix.misc
|date=1992-11-26
|author=Jamie Mazer
|accessdate=2008-02-03
}}</ref> and of "GNU+Linux" as early as 1993.<ref>{{cite newsgroup
|url=http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux/msg/dcf89e95ca953b69
|title=Re: http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux/msg/dcf89e95ca953b69
|newsgroup=comp.os.linux
|date=1993-05-18
|author=Rodrigo Vanegas
|accessdate=2008-02-03
}}</ref> The Debian project switched to calling itself "GNU/Linux" in early 1994;<ref>{{cite newsgroup
|url=http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.misc/msg/4c19177c383c9b21
|title=Linux/GNU in EE Times
|newsgroup=comp.os.linux.misc
|date=1994-05-12
|author=Stephen Benson
|id=178@scribendum.win-uk.net
|accessdate=2008-01-31
}}</ref> Debian founder [[Ian Murdock]] later noted that this change was made in response to a request by Richard Stallman (who initially proposed "Lignux," but suggested "GNU/Linux" instead after hearing complaints about the awkwardness of the former term).<ref>Sam Williams, ''Free as in Freedom: Richard Stallman's Crusade for Free Software'', [http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ch10.html chapter 10] (O'Reilly, 2002).</ref>
GNU's June 1994 ''Bulletin'' describes "Linux" as a "free [[Unix]] system for [[Intel 80386|386]] machines" (with "many of the utilities and libraries" from GNU),<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.gnu.org/bulletins/bull17.html
|title=GNU's Bulletin, vol. 1 no. 17
|}}</ref> but the January 1995 ''Bulletin'' switched to the term "GNU/Linux" instead.<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.gnu.org/bulletins/bull18.html
|title=GNU's Bulletin, vol. 1 no. 18
|}}</ref> Stallman's and the FSF's efforts to include "GNU" in the name started around 1994, but were reportedly mostly via private communications (such as the abovementioned request to Debian) until 1996.<ref>Richard Stallman, "[http://lkml.org/lkml/2003/1/12/55 Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in closed source drivers?]," ''linux-kernel mailing list'' (12 January 2003).</ref><ref>{{cite newsgroup
|url=http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.misc/msg/1241a2919efc4bc3
|title=Linux is a GNU system and the DWARF support
|newsgroup=comp.os.linux.misc
|date=1994-09-08
|author=Matt Welsh
|accessdate=2008-02-03
}} "RMS's idea (which I have heard first-hand) is that Linux systems
should be considered GNU systems with Linux as the kernel."</ref> In May 1996, Stallman released [[Emacs]] 19.31 with the [[Autoconf]] system target "linux" changed to "lignux" (shortly thereafter changed to "linux-gnu" in emacs 19.32), and included an essay "Linux and the GNU system" suggesting that people use the terms "Linux-based GNU system" (or "GNU/Linux system" or "Lignux" for short). He later used "GNU/Linux" exclusively, and the essay was superseded by Stallman's 1997 essay, "Linux and the GNU project".<ref name="linuxandgnu">[http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html GNU project website]</ref>
== Composition of Linux-based systems ==
Modern [[free and open source software]] systems are composed of software by many different authors, including the Linux kernel developers, the GNU project, and other vendors such as those behind the [[X Window System]]. Desktop- and server-based distributions use GNU components such as the [[GNU C Library]] (glibc), [[GNU Core Utilities]] (Coreutils), and [[bash]].
In an analysis of the source code for packages comprising [[Red Hat Linux]] 7.1, a typical [[Linux distribution]], the total size of the packages from the GNU project was found to be much larger than the Linux kernel.<ref>{{cite web|author=David A. Wheeler|url=http://www.dwheeler.com/sloc/redhat71-v1/redhat71sloc.html |title=More Than a Gigabuck: Estimating GNU/Linux's Size|date=2002-07-29 |quote=the total of the GNU project's code is much larger than the Linux kernel's size. Thus, by comparing the total contributed effort, it's certainly justifiable to call the entire system ''GNU/Linux'' and not just ''Linux''.|}}</ref> Determining exactly what constitutes the "operating system" ''per se'' is a matter of continuing debate.
On the other hand, some [[embedded systems]], such as [[handheld device]]s, [[residential gateway]]s (routers), and [[Voice over IP]] devices, are engineered with space efficiency in mind and use a Linux kernel with few or no components of GNU. A system running [[μClinux]] is likely to substitute [[uClibc]] for glibc and [[BusyBox]] for Coreutils. Everyone, including the FSF, agrees that "GNU/Linux" is not an appropriate name for these systems.<ref name="fsf-faq"/>
== Opinions supporting "GNU/Linux"==
[[Image:Gnu-and-penguin-color.png|250px|thumb|right|[[Free Software Foundation|FSF]] artwork of the [[gnu]] (GNU mascot) and the [[penguin]] [[Tux]] (Linux kernel mascot) representing their viewpoint on "GNU/Linux". The [[GNU General Public License]] (GPL), which is used by the Linux kernel as well as by most GNU software, armors both characters.]]
The FSF justifies the name "GNU/Linux" primarily on the grounds that the GNU project was specifically developing a complete system, of which they argue the kernel Linux filled one of the final gaps<ref name="linux-and-gnu"/>; the large number of GNU components and GNU [[source code]] used in such systems is a secondary argument:
{{quotation|So if you were going to pick a name for the system based on who wrote the programs in the system, the most appropriate single choice would be ''GNU''. But we don't think that is the right way to consider the question. The GNU Project was not, is not, a project to develop specific software packages. ''[...]'' Many people have made major contributions to the free software in the system, and they all deserve credit. But the reason it is an integrated system — and not just a collection of useful programs — is because the GNU Project set out to make it one. We made a list of the programs needed to make a complete free system, and we systematically wrote, or found people to write, everything on the list.<ref name="linux-and-gnu">Richard Stallman, "[http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html Linux and the GNU Project]"</ref>}}
In addition, the FSF also argues that "GNU/Linux recognizes the role that our [[free software philosophy|idealism]] played in building our community, and helps the public recognize the practical importance of these ideals"<ref name="fsf-faq">[http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html GNU/Linux FAQ], the Free Software Foundation's responses to common objections to the "GNU/Linux" name.</ref>, in contrast to the [[Open source software|focus on "technical advantage"]] rather than "freedom" of the Linux kernel developers<ref>Richard Stallman, [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/linux-gnu-freedom.html Linux, GNU, and freedom] (2002): "Calling this variant of the GNU system "Linux" plays into the hands of people who choose their software based only on technical advantage, not caring whether it respects their freedom."</ref><ref>Linus Torvalds, [http://groups.google.com/group/fa.linux.kernel/msg/dc06a9cc074b44d4 ''linux-kernel'' mailing list]: "Besides, as the whole notion of 'free software' has very little to do with the kernel, please just link to some open source site" (28 April 2002).</ref>. In the case of the Linux kernel, notable and recurring examples of this focus on technical advantage over freedom come from the long-time inclusion in the Linux kernel of many [[Binary blob|non-free firmware files]] and other files with [[non-free]] license terms.<ref name="linuxandgnu"/>
The ordinary understanding of "operating system" includes both the kernel — the specific subsystem that directly interfaces with the hardware — and the "[[userland (computing)|userland]]" software that is employed by the user and by application software to control the computer. Moreover, both the name "GNU" and the name "Linux" are intentionally related to the name "Unix", and Unix has always conceptually included the [[C (programming language)|C]] [[library (computer science)|library]] and userland tools as well as the kernel. In the 1991 release notes for versions 0.01 to 0.11 of the Linux kernel (which was not released under the [[GNU General Public License]] until version 0.12<ref>Linus Torvalds, "[http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/Historic/old-versions/RELNOTES-0.12 Release Notes for Linux v0.12]" (January 1992).</ref>), Torvalds wrote, "Sadly, a kernel by itself gets you nowhere <nowiki>[...]</nowiki> Most of the tools used with linux are GNU software."<ref>Linus Torvalds, "[http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/Historic/old-versions/RELNOTES-0.01 Notes for linux release 0.01]" (September 1991).</ref> Torvalds also wrote during the 1992 [[Tanenbaum-Torvalds debate]] that, "As has been noted (not only by me), the linux kernel is a miniscule part of a complete system".<ref>Linus Torvalds, [http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.minix/msg/ac1b04eb0e09c03e comp.os.minix post] (January 31, 1992).</ref>
The use of the word "Linux" to refer to the kernel, the operating system, and entire [[Linux distribution|distribution]]s, often leads to confusion about the distinctions among the three. Many [[List of GNU packages|GNU packages]] are a key part of almost every Linux distribution. Media sources frequently make erroneous statements such as claiming that the entire Linux operating system (rather than simply the kernel) was written from scratch by Torvalds in 1991 <ref>"Linux is an operating system that was initially created as a hobby by a young student, Linus Torvalds, at the University of Helsinki in Finland." ([http://www.linux.org/info/index.html Linux.org], October 15, 2008)</ref>; that Torvalds directs the development of other components such as graphical interfaces or the GNU tools; or that new releases of the kernel involve a similar degree of user-visible change as do new versions of [[proprietary software|proprietary]] operating systems such as [[Microsoft Windows]], where many things besides the kernel change simultaneously.
Because of this confusion, legal threats and [[public relations]] campaigns apparently directed against the kernel, such as those launched by the [[SCO Group]] or the [[Alexis de Tocqueville Institution]] (AdTI), have been misinterpreted by many commentators who assume that the whole operating system is being targeted. These organisations have even been accused of deliberately exploiting this confusion.<ref>{{cite web
|title=SCO-Caldera v IBM
|url=http://www.mozillaquest.com/Linux03/ScoSource-10_Story01.html
|author=Mike Angelo
|date=[[28 April]] [[2003]]
|quote=Generally, SCO's [[SCO v. IBM|Caldera v IBM Complaint]] is vague and confusing as to whether the accusations involve the Linux kernel, the GNU/Linux operating system, Linux distributions, Linux applications, or whatever.
}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
|quote=SCO has used "Linux" to mean "all free software", or "all free software constituting a UNIX-like operating system." This confusion, which the Free Software Foundation warned against in the past, is here shown to have the misleading consequences the Foundation has often predicted
|author=[[Eben Moglen]]
|date=[[27 June]] [[2003]]
|url=http://www.fsf.org/licensing/sco/sco-v-ibm.html
|title=FSF Statement on SCO v IBM]
}}</ref>
<ref>{{cite web
|quote=In particular, Stallman criticized the <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[Kenneth Brown (author)|Ken Brown]]/AdTI<nowiki>]</nowiki> report for capitalizing on common confusion between the Linux kernel, which Stallman says "Linus really wrote", with the full GNU operating system and associated software, which can be and generally is used with the Linux kernel.
|author=Lisa Stapleton
|publication=LinuxInsider
|url=http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/34069.html
|title=Stallman: Accusatory Report Deliberately Confuses
|date=[[27 May]] [[2004]]
}}</ref>
In response to suggestions that Stallman's renaming efforts stem from egotism or personal pique, Stallman 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".''<ref name="stallman-transcript">Richard Stallman, "[http://www.gnu.org/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation]", transcript of speech at New York University in New York, New York ([[29 May]] [[2001]]).</ref>
Stallman has admitted to irritation, although he believes it to be justified in response to seeing "an idealistic project stymied and made ineffective, because people don't usually give it the credit for what it has done," concluding "If you're an idealist like me, that can ruin your whole decade."<ref>Richard Stallman, "[http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/9904.0/0299.html Re: GNU/Linux]", linux-kernel mailing list ([[3 April]] [[1999]]).</ref>
In response to another common argument (see below), the FSF acknowledges that many people have contributed to the system and that a short name cannot credit all of them, but argues that this cannot justify calling the system "Linux":
{{quotation|Since a long name such as GNU/X11/Apache/Linux/TeX/Perl/Python/FreeCiv becomes absurd, at some point you will have to set a threshold and omit the names of the many other secondary contributions. There is no one obvious right place to set the threshold, so wherever you set it, we won't argue against it ... But one name that cannot result from concerns of fairness and giving credit, not for any possible threshold level, is "Linux". It can't be fair to give all the credit to one secondary contribution (Linux) while omitting the principal contribution (GNU).<ref name="fsf-faq"/>}}
== Opinions supporting "Linux"==
"Linux" is by far the more widespread name,<ref name="OSWeekly"> {{cite web|url = http://www.osweekly.com/index.php?option=com_content&Itemid=&task=view&id=2242|title = The "GNU/Linux" and "Linux" Controversy|accessdate = 2008-10-26|last = Govind|first = Puru|authorlink = |year = 2006|month = May}}</ref> while references to "GNU/Linux" appear only infrequently in mainstream sources. "Linux" has more historical momentum because it is the name Torvalds has used for the combined system since 1991, while Stallman only began asking people to call the system "GNU/Linux" in the mid 1990s, some time after the "Linux" name had already become popular. "Linux" also is shorter and easier to say than "GNU/Linux".
[[Eric S. Raymond]] writes (in the "Linux" entry of the [[Jargon File]]):
{{quotation|Some people object that the name "Linux" should be used to refer only to the kernel, not the entire operating system. This claim is a proxy for an underlying territorial dispute; people who insist on the term GNU/Linux want the FSF to get most of the credit for Linux because [Stallman] and friends wrote many of its user-level tools. Neither this theory nor the term GNU/Linux has gained more than minority acceptance.}}
Linus Torvalds has said in the documentary [[Revolution OS]], when asked if the name GNU/Linux was justified:
{{quotation|Well, I think it's justified, but it's justified if you actually make a GNU distribution of Linux ... the same way that I think that "Red Hat Linux" is fine, or "SuSE Linux" or "Debian Linux", because if you actually make your own distribution of Linux, you get to name the thing, but calling Linux in general "GNU Linux" I think is just ridiculous.<ref>{{cite video|people=Moore, J.T.S. (Produced, Written, and Directed)|title=[[Revolution OS]]|medium=DVD|year=2001}}</ref>}}
An earlier comment by Torvalds on the naming controversy was:
{{quotation|Umm, this discussion has gone on quite long enough, thank you very much. It doesn't really matter what people call Linux, as long as credit is given where credit is due (on both sides). Personally, I'll very much continue to call it "Linux".<ref>Linus Torvalds, "[http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.misc/msg/7781d4221fceedb2 Lignux, what's the matter with you people?]", comp.os.linux.misc newsgroup ([[3 June]] [[1996]]).</ref>}}
In a similar vein, the debate over the name for the operating system is sometimes characterized as a trivial distraction; e.g. [[John C. Dvorak]] wrote "the Linux community spends too much of its energy on things such as nomenclature (like the name GNU/Linux versus Linux)."<ref>John C. Dvorak, "[http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,25130,00.asp Is Linux Your next OS?]", ''PC Magazine'' ([[5 March]] [[2002]]).</ref>
The ''Linux Journal'' speculated that Stallman's advocacy of the combined name stems from frustration that "Linus got the glory for what <nowiki>[Stallman]</nowiki> wanted to do."<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://linux4u.jinr.ru/usoft/WWW/LJ/issue30/issue30.html#ftp30
|title=From the Publisher: On the Politics of Freedom
|publisher=[[Linux Journal]] #30 (October 1996)
|quote=Perhaps RMS is frustrated because Linus got the glory for what RMS wanted to do
|}}</ref>
Others have suggested that, regardless of the merits, Stallman's persistence in what sometimes seems a lost cause makes him and GNU look bad. For example, [[Larry McVoy]] (author of the proprietary software [[BitKeeper]], once used to manage Linux kernel development, until the gratis license was revoked in the [[BitKeeper#Pricing_change|reverse-engineering controversy]]) opined that "claiming credit only makes one look foolish and greedy".<ref>Larry McVoy, "[http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/9904.0/0301.html Re: GNU/Linux]", linux-kernel mailing list ([[3 April]] [[1999]]).</ref>
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. As stated by [[Jim Gettys]], originator of X:
{{quotation|There are lots of people on this bus; I don't hear a clamor of support that GNU is more essential than many of the other components; can't take a wheel away, and end up with a functional vehicle, or an engine, or the seats. I recommend you be happy we have a bus.<ref>Jim Gettys, [http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/9904.0/0497.html Re: GNU/Linux], linux-kernel mailing list ([[5 April]] [[1999]]).</ref>}}
==Notas e referências==
{{reflist|2}} -->
=={{Links externos}}==
| 