##
## ABOUT file - Terminocheck
##
## These are three articles (written by Richard Stallman) from
## https://www.gnu.org, explaining why this script is needed and
## should be used. All commented lines are from this package
## maintainer, Felicien PILLOT <felicien.pillot@member.fsf.org>.


## I/ Linux and GNU
## original text and translations at https://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html

Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system
every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of
events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often
called “Linux”, and many of its users are not aware that it is
basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.

There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it
is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the
program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the
other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an
operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the
context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in
combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is
basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called
“Linux” distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.

Many users do not understand the difference between the kernel, which
is Linux, and the whole system, which they also call “Linux”. The
ambiguous use of the name doesn't help people understand. These users
often think that Linus Torvalds developed the whole operating system in
1991, with a bit of help.

Programmers generally know that Linux is a kernel. But since they have
generally heard the whole system called “Linux” as well, they often
envisage a history that would justify naming the whole system after the
kernel. For example, many believe that once Linus Torvalds finished writing
Linux, the kernel, its users looked around for other free software to go
with it, and found that (for no particular reason) most everything
necessary to make a Unix-like system was already available.

What they found was no accident—it was the not-quite-complete GNU system.
The available free software added up to a complete system because the GNU
Project had been working since 1984 to make one. In the The GNU Manifesto
we set forth the goal of developing a free Unix-like system, called GNU.
The Initial Announcement of the GNU Project also outlines some of the
original plans for the GNU system. By the time Linux was started, GNU was
almost finished.

Most free software projects have the goal of developing a particular
program for a particular job. For example, Linus Torvalds set out to
write a Unix-like kernel (Linux); Donald Knuth set out to write a text
formatter (TeX); Bob Scheifler set out to develop a window system (the X
Window System). It's natural to measure the contribution of this kind of
project by specific programs that came from the project.

If we tried to measure the GNU Project's contribution in this way, what
would we conclude? One CD-ROM vendor found that in their “Linux
distribution”, GNU software was the largest single contingent,
around 28% of the total source code, and this included some of the
essential major components without which there could be no system.
Linux itself was about 3%. (The proportions in 2008 are similar: in
the “main” repository of gNewSense, Linux is 1.5% and GNU packages are
15%.) 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 that is not the deepest way to consider the question. The GNU
Project was not, is not, a project to develop specific software
packages. It was not a project to develop a C compiler, although we
did that. It was not a project to develop a text editor, although we
developed one. The GNU Project set out to develop a complete free
Unix-like system: GNU.

Many people have made major contributions to the free software in the
system, and they all deserve credit for their software. 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 found, wrote, or found people to write
everything on the list. We wrote essential but unexciting (1)
components because you can't have a system without them. Some of
our system components, the programming tools, became popular on
their own among programmers, but we wrote many components that are
not tools (2). We even developed a chess game, GNU Chess, because a
complete system needs games too.

By the early 90s we had put together the whole system aside from the
kernel. We had also started a kernel, the GNU Hurd, which runs on top of
Mach. Developing this kernel has been a lot harder than we expected;
the GNU Hurd started working reliably in 2001, but it is a long way from
being ready for people to use in general.

Fortunately, we didn't have to wait for the Hurd, because of Linux. Once
Torvalds freed Linux in 1992, it fit into the last major gap in the GNU
system. People could then combine Linux with the GNU system to make a
complete free system — a version of the GNU system which also contained
Linux. The GNU/Linux system, in other words.

Making them work well together was not a trivial job. Some GNU
components(3) needed substantial change to work with Linux.
Integrating a complete system as a distribution that would work
“out of the box” was a big job, too. It required addressing the
issue of how to install and boot the system—a problem we had not
tackled, because we hadn't yet reached that point. Thus, the people
who developed the various system distributions did a lot of essential
work. But it was work that, in the nature of things, was surely going
to be done by someone.

The GNU Project supports GNU/Linux systems as well as the GNU system.
The FSF funded the rewriting of the Linux-related extensions to the GNU C
library, so that now they are well integrated, and the newest GNU/Linux
systems use the current library release with no changes. The FSF also
funded an early stage of the development of Debian GNU/Linux.

Today there are many different variants of the GNU/Linux system (often
called “distros”). Most of them include non-free software—their developers
follow the philosophy associated with Linux rather than that of GNU. But
there are also completely free GNU/Linux distros. The FSF supports
computer facilities for gNewSense.

Making a free GNU/Linux distribution is not just a matter of
eliminating various non-free programs. Nowadays, the usual
version of Linux contains non-free programs too. These
programs are intended to be loaded into I/O devices when the
system starts, and they are included, as long series of numbers,
in the "source code" of Linux. Thus, maintaining free GNU/Linux
distributions now entails maintaining a free version of Linux too.

Whether you use GNU/Linux or not, please don't confuse the public by
using the name “Linux” ambiguously. Linux is the kernel, one of the
essential major components of the system. The system as a whole is
basically the GNU system, with Linux added. When you're talking about
this combination, please call it “GNU/Linux”.

If you want to make a link on “GNU/Linux” for further reference, this
page and http://www.gnu.org/gnu/the-gnu-project.html are good choices.
If you mention Linux, the kernel, and want to add a link for further
reference, http://foldoc.org/linux is a good URL to use.


## II/ GNU users who have never heard of GNU
## original text and translations at
## https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-users-never-heard-of-gnu.html

Most people have never heard of GNU. Even most of the people who use
the GNU system have never heard of GNU, since so many people and
companies teach them to call it “Linux”. Indeed, GNU users often say
they are “running Linux”, which is like saying you are “driving your
carburettor” or “driving your transmission”.

Nonetheless, those who know about GNU associate it with the ideals of
freedom of the free software movement. That association is no accident;
the motive for developing GNU was specifically to make it possible to use
a computer and have freedom.

A person seeing the name “GNU” for the first time in “GNU/Linux” won't
immediately know what it represents, has come one step closer to finding
out. The association between the name GNU and our goals of freedom and
social solidarity exists in the minds of hundreds of thousands of
GNU/Linux users that do know about GNU. It exists in gnu.org and in
Wikipedia. It exists around the web; if these users search for GNU,
they will find the ideas GNU stands for.

If they don't search, they may encounter them anyway. The “open source”
rhetoric tends to lead people's attention away from issues of users'
freedom, but not totally; there is still discussion of GNU and free
software, and people have some chance of coming across it. When that
happens, they are more likely to pay attention to information about GNU
(such as that it's the work of a campaign for freedom and community) if
they know they are users of the GNU system.

Over time, calling the system “GNU/Linux” spreads awareness of the
ideals of freedom for which we developed the GNU system. It is also
useful as a reminder for people in our community who know about these
ideals, in a world where much of discussion of free software takes a
totally practical (and thus amoral) approach. When we ask you to call
the system “GNU/Linux”, we are asking you to help in making the public
aware of the free software ideals.


## III/ What's in a name ?
## original text and translations at https://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html

Names convey meanings; our choice of names determines the meaning of
what we say. An inappropriate name gives people the wrong idea. A rose
by any other name would smell as sweet—but if you call it a pen, people
will be rather disappointed when they try to write with it. And if
you call pens “roses”, people may not realize what they are good for.
If you call our operating system Linux, that conveys a mistaken idea of
the system's origin, history, and purpose. If you call it GNU/Linux,
that conveys (though not in detail) an accurate idea.

Does this really matter for our community? Is it important whether
people know the system's origin, history, and purpose? Yes—because
people who forget history are often condemned to repeat it. The Free
World that has developed around GNU/Linux is not guaranteed to survive;
the problems that led us to develop GNU are not completely eradicated,
and they threaten to come back.

When I explain why it's appropriate to call the operating system
GNU/Linux rather than Linux, people sometimes respond this way:

Granted that the GNU Project deserves credit for this work, is it
really worth a fuss when people don't give credit? Isn't the
important thing that the job was done, not who did it? You ought
to relax, take pride in the job well done, and not worry about the
credit.

This would be wise advice, if only the situation were like that—if the
job were done and it were time to relax. If only that were true! But
challenges abound, and this is no time to take the future for granted.
Our community's strength rests on commitment to freedom and cooperation.
Using the name GNU/Linux is a way for people to remind themselves and
inform others of these goals.

It is possible to write good free software without thinking of GNU;
much good work has been done in the name of Linux also. But the term
“Linux” has been associated ever since it was first coined with a
philosophy that does not make a commitment to the freedom to
cooperate. As the name is increasingly used by business, we will
have even more trouble making it connect with community spirit.

A great challenge to the future of free software comes from the
tendency of the “Linux” distribution companies to add nonfree
software to GNU/Linux in the name of convenience and power. All
the major commercial distribution developers do this; none limits
itself to free software. Most of them do not clearly identify the
nonfree packages in their distributions. Many even develop nonfree
software and add it to the system. Some outrageously advertise “Linux”
systems that are “licensed per seat”, which give the user as much freedom
as Microsoft Windows.

People try to justify adding nonfree software in the name of the
“popularity of Linux”—in effect, valuing popularity above freedom.
Sometimes this is openly admitted. For instance, Wired Magazine said
that Robert McMillan, editor of Linux Magazine, “feels that the move
toward open source software should be fueled by technical, rather than
political, decisions.” And Caldera's CEO openly urged users to drop the
goal of freedom and work instead for the “popularity of Linux”.

Adding nonfree software to the GNU/Linux system may increase the
popularity, if by popularity we mean the number of people using some
of GNU/Linux in combination with nonfree software. But at the same time,
it implicitly encourages the community to accept nonfree software as a
good thing, and forget the goal of freedom. It is not good to drive faster
if you can't stay on the road.

When the nonfree “add-on” is a library or programming tool, it can become
a trap for free software developers. When they write free software that
depends on the nonfree package, their software cannot be part of a
completely free system. Motif and Qt trapped large amounts of free
software in this way in the past, creating problems whose solutions
took years. Motif remained somewhat of a problem until it became
obsolete and was no longer used. Later, Sun's nonfree Java
implementation had a similar effect: the Java Trap, fortunately now
mostly corrected.

If our community keeps moving in this direction, it could redirect the
future of GNU/Linux into a mosaic of free and nonfree components. Five
years from now, we will surely still have plenty of free software; but if
we are not careful, it will hardly be usable without the nonfree software
that users expect to find with it. If this happens, our campaign for
freedom will have failed.

If releasing free alternatives were simply a matter of programming,
solving future problems might become easier as our community's
development resources increase. But we face obstacles that threaten
to make this harder: laws that prohibit free software. As software
patents mount up, and as laws like the DMCA are used to prohibit the
development of free software for important jobs such as viewing a DVD or
listening to a RealAudio stream, we will find ourselves with no clear
way to fight the patented and secret data formats except to reject the
nonfree programs that use them.

Meeting these challenges will require many different kinds of effort.
But what we need above all, to confront any kind of challenge, is to
remember the goal of freedom to cooperate. We can't expect a mere desire
for powerful, reliable software to motivate people to make great efforts.
We need the kind of determination that people have when they fight for
their freedom and their community—determination to keep on for years and
not give up.

In our community, this goal and this determination emanate mainly from
the GNU Project. We're the ones who talk about freedom and community as
something to stand firm for; the organizations that speak of “Linux”
normally don't say this. The magazines about “Linux” are typically full
of ads for nonfree software; the companies that package “Linux” add
nonfree software to the system; other companies “support Linux” by
developing nonfree applications to run on GNU/Linux; the user groups
for “Linux” typically invite salesman to present those applications. The
main place people in our community are likely to come across the idea of
freedom and determination is in the GNU Project.

But when people come across it, will they feel it relates to them?

People who know they are using a system that came out of the GNU
Project can see a direct relationship between themselves and GNU.
They won't automatically agree with our philosophy, but at least they
will see a reason to think seriously about it. In contrast, people who
consider themselves “Linux users”, and believe that the GNU Project
“developed tools which proved to be useful in Linux”, typically
perceive only an indirect relationship between GNU and themselves.
They may just ignore the GNU philosophy when they come across it.

The GNU Project is idealistic, and anyone encouraging idealism today
faces a great obstacle: the prevailing ideology encourages people to
dismiss idealism as “impractical”. Our idealism has been extremely
practical: it is the reason we have a free GNU/Linux operating system.
People who love this system ought to know that it is our idealism made
real.

If “the job” really were done, if there were nothing at stake except
credit, perhaps it would be wiser to let the matter drop. But we are not
in that position. To inspire people to do the work that needs to be done,
we need to be recognized for what we have already done. Please help us,
by calling the operating system GNU/Linux.


##
Thank you for having read this !