The article, "Call me GNU: The GNU/Linux naming debate, revisited" has received some feedback demonstrating that there is still quite a bit of (irrational?) resistance to calling GNU by its proper name. Here are a few answers to some of the FUD:
Rick Stanley writes, ". . . calling it just 'GNU,' attempts to illegally claim that the FSF owns the Linux kernel [and other components]."
To say that calling it GNU is "illegal," because there are components of the system developed by others and that, that implies the Free Software Foundation owns those components, is foolish on the face of it, for at least 3 reasons:
1. If this were true, then calling the system Linux would imply that Linus Torvalds "owns" all the other components and that name would be "illegal."
2. The point of Free Software is to allow the re-use and re-branding of software. And
3. Many operating systems are built from Free Software components created by others, including the BSDs, Mac OS X, and Android, as the article explains.
John Morris says, "Debian, Fedora, Ubuntu and the others still wouldn't be entitled to use the [GNU] name."
The GNU Project not only says they can, but actively encourages them to.
I understand why corporations don't like the name, GNU but its hard to understand why some run-of-the-mill folks are so resistant. None of this is meant to detract from the great work of the kernel developers. Linux is an important piece of Free Software puzzle, but it is a kernel, not an operating system as that term generally is used today.
Remember to be smart, be bold, and be right; call it GNU.