GNU/Linux命名爭議

GNU/Linux命名爭議，是在自由及開放原始碼軟體社群成員內的，關於是應該把使用GNU軟體與Linux核心組合之作業系統稱為「GNU/Linux」還是「Linux」的爭議。

GNU/Linux這一名稱是由自由軟體基金會的創立者與GNU計劃的發起人理察·斯托曼所提出的。GNU的開發者與其支持者，希望以該名稱來作為此作業系統的正式名稱。他們認為，此作業系統，包括了GNU系統軟體套件與Linux核心，使用GNU/Linux這個名稱，可以良好概括它的主要內容。況且，GNU計畫原本就是以發展一個自由的作業系統為遠程計畫，但遲遲沒有完成。而Linux核心的出現剛好可以補足這個缺口。

Linux核心本身並不是GNU計劃的一部份，GNU/Linux這個名稱在Linux社群中並沒有得到一致認同。一些諸如Debian的發行版社群採用了GNU/Linux這一名稱，但許多Linux社群中的成員認為使用Linux這一名稱更好，主張Linux這個名稱朗朗上口，且在公眾與媒體中更為通用。Linux核心專案的發起人林納斯·托瓦茲偏好於使用Linux，但對於GNU/Linux這個名字並不強烈反感。

發音[編輯]

「GNU/Linux」/ɡəˈnuː slæʃ ˈlɪnəks/，在口語時，經常省略掉當中的斜線「/」，理察·斯托曼建議把斜線（slash）或加（plus）唸出來，因為Linux核心並不屬於GNU計畫軟體^[1]。

概論[編輯]

GNU計劃始於1984年，它的最終的目標是完成一套完全自由的作業系統。到1991年，Linux核心的第一個版本公開發行時，GNU計劃已經完成了除作業系統核心之外的大部分軟體，其中包括了Shell程式（Bash），C語言程式庫（Glibc）以及一個C語言編譯器（Gcc）等等。林納斯·托瓦茲和其他早期的Linux開發人員使用了這些軟體，而完成了Linux作業系統。正是由於Linux使用了很多的GNU程式，理察·斯托曼認為將該作業系統稱為「GNU/Linux」比較恰當。

Linux核心是在GNU通用公共許可證下發行的。它並不是GNU計劃的一部分。一些拒絕使用「GNU/Linux」作為作業系統名稱的人認為Linux朗朗上口，短而好記，而且斯托曼直到1990年代中期Linux開始流行後才要求更名。

諸如Debian的部分Linux發行版採用了「GNU/Linux」的稱呼。但大多數Linux發行版製作團隊依然將作業系統稱為Linux。有些人認為「作業系統」一詞指的只是系統的核心，而其他程式都只能算是應用軟體，這麼一來，該作業系統的核心應叫Linux。

在這兩個主要名稱之外，也有其他名稱的提議。1992年，Yggdrasil Linux主張命名為Linux/GNU/X，因為除了GNU計劃軟體之外，Linux還採用了X視窗。

歷史[編輯]

1992年，Yggdrasil Linux提出「GNU/Linux/X」這個名稱。

1992年，在Usenet及郵件列表討論中，首次有人使用「GNU/Linux」這個名稱^[2]。「GNU+Linux」這個名稱，則可以追溯到1993年^[3] 。

1994年，Debian專案開始使用「GNU/Linux」來稱呼它們自己^[4]^[5]。

GNU/Linux支持者的觀點[編輯]

理察·斯托曼認為：

今天有數千萬個使用者，正在使用的這個作業系統，是早就已經開發好，讓他們可以自由的使用。但是他們不曉得，因為他們以為這個系統是Linux，而它是由一個學生「只是為了好玩」（just for fun）而發展出來的^[a]。
——理察·斯托曼^[6]

並且他強調，Linux的成功，是建立在GNU計畫的基礎上：

所以，如果你要為這個作業系統選出一個名字，根據誰寫了在這系統中的程式，最適合的唯一選擇就是GNU。但我們不認為這是這個問題的正確解答。GNU計劃，過去不是，現在也不是，一個為了發展特定軟體套件而建立的專案。……許多人為了這個系統中的自由軟體都做出了小小的貢獻，而這些功勞都應該歸給他們。但這之所以是個整合好的系統－而不是只是把有用的軟體收集在一起－這是因為GNU計畫著手讓它成為一個完整的系統。要建立一個完整的自由系統，需要哪些軟體，我們列出了名單，而且我們有計劃的進行寫作，或是找到人來創作這個名單中的所有軟體。
——理察·斯托曼^[7]

他一再強調GNU計畫的貢獻，認為不應該過度強調Linux：

把一長串的名字都列出來，像是GNU/X11/Apache/Linux/TeX/Perl/Python/FreeCiv，這顯然是很荒謬的，在某種程度上，你要設個標準，省略掉許多其他次要貢獻者的名字。沒有一個明顯的地方可以設定這個標準，所以無論你設定的標準在哪，我們都不會提出抗議。……但是考慮到公平性，以及貢獻，不管標準是什麼，有個名字都是不應該被使用的，那就是「Linux」。把所有的功勞都歸給一個次要的貢獻者（Linux），但是忽略主要的貢獻者（GNU），這不會是公平的。
——理察·斯托曼^[8]

理察·斯托曼認為：「GNU/Linux這個名字，承認我們的理想，在建立我們社群上所扮演的角色，而且幫助大眾認知到這些理想的實際上的重要性。」^[9]，這與Linux核心開發者，關心「技術優勢」超過「自由」，可以形成對比^[10]^[11]。

Linux支持者的觀點[編輯]

埃里克·雷蒙曾說：

有些人反對用「Linux」這個名字只能用來指核心，而不是整個作業系統。這個主張是用來代替在底下的領土爭議；堅持使用GNU/Linux這個名字的人，希望成就Linux的最大功勞應該歸給FSF，因為史托曼跟他的朋友寫了許多使用者層級的工具。這個理論，或是GNU/Linux這個名稱，都沒有得到很大的支援^[12]。

林納斯·托瓦茲個人傾向於使用Linux這個名稱，但並不強烈反對GNU/Linux這個名字。他在訪談中表示：

呣，關於這個的討論已經持續很久了，非常感謝你。人們怎麼稱呼Linux並不是個大問題，至少功勞已經都歸給有功勞的人了（兩邊都是）。就我個人來說，我會繼續叫它Linux，……GNU的人希望稱呼它GNU/Linux，這沒問題。它是跟「Linux Pro」或「Red Hat Linux」或「Slackware Linux」這些名稱一樣好的名稱。……Lignux這個名稱只是開玩笑取的，我覺得Linux/GNU或GNU/Linux有點更「專業」……^[13]^[14]

在接受記錄片《作業系統革命》（Revolution OS）訪談時，林納斯·托瓦茲表達對GNU/Linux這個名稱的想法，他表示：

好的，我認為這個稱呼是合理的，但只有你真的做了一個Linux的GNU發行版時，這才是合理的……這就像是我覺得「Red Hat Linux」，或「SuSE Linux」或「Debian Linux」這些名稱是很好的，因為如果你真的做了一個你自己的Linux發行版時，你必須要幫它取個名稱，但是要把Linux全部通稱「GNU Linux」，我覺得這很荒謬。^[15]^[16]^[17]

許多使用者支援使用Linux這個名稱來稱呼這整個作業系統，因為這可以概括作業系中其他非核心元件、也非GNU的軟體，例如Apache HTTP Server、KDE與X視窗系統。X視窗系統的創始者之一，吉姆·傑提斯（Jim Gettys）認為：

在這台巴士上有許多的人；我沒聽到有人在大聲的要求，支援GNU是比其他許多元件更必要的；你不能把輪胎，或是引擎，或是座椅拿走，這會讓車子的功能停擺。我建議大家應該要高興，我們有一台完整的車。^[18]^[19]

腳註[編輯]

^ just for fun是林納斯·托瓦茲的自傳名稱。

註釋[編輯]

^ Jeremy Andrews, Interview: Richard Stallman, KernelTrap.org (2 January. 2005). [2014-06-13]. （原始內容存檔於2012-01-20）.
^ Jamie Mazer. Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Alpha release Linux/GNU/X .... Newsgroup: comp.unix.misc. 1992-11-26 [2008-02-03]. （原始內容存檔於2011-11-27）.
^ Rodrigo Vanegas. The free software myth and the commercial myth. Newsgroup: comp.os.linux. 1993-05-18 [2008-02-03]. （原始內容存檔於2009-02-20）.
^ Stephen Benson. Linux/GNU in EE Times. Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc. 1994-05-12 [2008-01-31]. 178@scribendum.win-uk.net. （原始內容存檔於2011-05-14）.
^ Official announcement of the Debian Linux to GNU/Linux name change on the debian-announce mailing list
^ Free Software as a Social Movement. ZNet. 2005-12-18 [2012-10-19]. （原始內容存檔於2012-10-23）. Today tens of millions of users are using an operating system that was developed so they could have freedom -- but they don't know this, because they think the system is Linux and that it was developed by a student "just for fun'.
^ Linux and GNU - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation. GNU Project. [2015-08-30]. （原始內容存檔於2021-02-01）. 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.
^ GNU/Linux FAQ - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation. [2015-08-30]. （原始內容存檔於2015-09-05）. 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).
^ GNU/Linux FAQ - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation. [2015-08-30]. （原始內容存檔於2015-09-05）. GNU/Linux recognizes the role that our idealism played in building our community, and helps the public recognize the practical importance of these ideals
^ Richard M. Stallman. Linux, GNU, and freedom - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation. 2002 [2015-08-30]. （原始內容存檔於2015-08-14）. 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.
^ Linus Torvalds. [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree. 2002-04-28 [2015-08-30]. （原始內容存檔於2011-01-22）. Besides, as the whole notion of "free software" has very little to do with the kernel, please just link to some open source site.
^ 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.
^ 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", ...The GNU people tried calling it GNU/Linux, and that's ok. It's certainly no worse a name than "Linux Pro" or "Red Hat Linux" or "Slackware Linux" ....Lignux is just a punny name - I think Linux/GNU or GNU/Linux is a bit more "professional" ...
^ Linus Torvalds, "Lignux, what's the matter with you people?", comp.os.linux.misc newsgroup (3 June 1996). [2015-08-30]. （原始內容存檔於2012-10-25）.
^ 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.
^ Moore, J.T.S. (Produced, Written, and Directed). Revolution OS (DVD). 2001.
^ Linus Torvalds, Linux, GNU/Linux. [2015-08-30]. （原始內容存檔於2020-12-23）.
^ 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.
^ Jim Gettys, Re: GNU/Linux, linux-kernel mailing list (5 April 1999) Archive.is的存檔，存檔日期2012年8月6日，

參見[編輯]

GNU

[6] ust for fun是林納斯·托瓦茲的自傳名稱。

[1] Jeremy Andrews, Interview: Richard Stallman, KernelTrap.org (2 January. 2005). [2014-06-13]. （原始內容存檔於2012-01-20）.

[2] Jamie Mazer. Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Alpha release Linux/GNU/X .... Newsgroup: comp.unix.misc. 1992-11-26 [2008-02-03]. （原始內容存檔於2011-11-27）.

[3] Rodrigo Vanegas. The free software myth and the commercial myth. Newsgroup: comp.os.linux. 1993-05-18 [2008-02-03]. （原始內容存檔於2009-02-20）.

[4] Stephen Benson. Linux/GNU in EE Times. Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc. 1994-05-12 [2008-01-31]. 178@scribendum.win-uk.net. （原始內容存檔於2011-05-14）.

[5] Official announcement of the Debian Linux to GNU/Linux name change on the debian-announce mailing list

[7] Free Software as a Social Movement. ZNet. 2005-12-18 [2012-10-19]. （原始內容存檔於2012-10-23）. Today tens of millions of users are using an operating system that was developed so they could have freedom -- but they don't know this, because they think the system is Linux and that it was developed by a student "just for fun'.

[8] Linux and GNU - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation. GNU Project. [2015-08-30]. （原始內容存檔於2021-02-01）. 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.

[9] GNU/Linux FAQ - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation. [2015-08-30]. （原始內容存檔於2015-09-05）. 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).

[10] GNU/Linux FAQ - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation. [2015-08-30]. （原始內容存檔於2015-09-05）. GNU/Linux recognizes the role that our idealism played in building our community, and helps the public recognize the practical importance of these ideals

[11] Richard M. Stallman. Linux, GNU, and freedom - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation. 2002 [2015-08-30]. （原始內容存檔於2015-08-14）. 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.

[12] Linus Torvalds. [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree. 2002-04-28 [2015-08-30]. （原始內容存檔於2011-01-22）. Besides, as the whole notion of "free software" has very little to do with the kernel, please just link to some open source site.

[13] 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.

[14] 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", ...The GNU people tried calling it GNU/Linux, and that's ok. It's certainly no worse a name than "Linux Pro" or "Red Hat Linux" or "Slackware Linux" ....Lignux is just a punny name - I think Linux/GNU or GNU/Linux is a bit more "professional" ...

[15] Linus Torvalds, "Lignux, what's the matter with you people?", comp.os.linux.misc newsgroup (3 June 1996). [2015-08-30]. （原始內容存檔於2012-10-25）.

[16] 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.

[17] Moore, J.T.S. (Produced, Written, and Directed). Revolution OS (DVD). 2001.

[18] Linus Torvalds, Linux, GNU/Linux. [2015-08-30]. （原始內容存檔於2020-12-23）.

[19] 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.

[20] Jim Gettys, Re: GNU/Linux, linux-kernel mailing list (5 April 1999) Archive.is的存檔，存檔日期2012年8月6日，

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[a]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]