The GNU/Linux naming controversy has nothing to do with "talking about
freedom". It's about giving credit to the GNU Project. The FSF maintains that
Ubuntu, Fedora, Linux Mint, Red Hat Enterprise Linux, Debian, Gentoo, etc are
all properly "GNU/Linux" systems and should be referred to as such.
I personally actually think that the controversy is silly at this point,
though I did side with the FSF at first. The reason I think it's silly is
because despite what the FSF and RMS suggest, people don't inform their
perceptions of things on their names in any real capacity. When people in the
mainstream think "Linux", they think "that operating system that geeks and
websites use" (or something to that effect; exactly what they'd describe it
would depend on their technical knowledge).
The only sense in which a name matters is when a name causes confusion. Case
in point: "open source". There is a real misunderstanding in the mainstream
that "open source" is about source code availability, when it's much more
than that. That's why I do encourage a clearer term for that: "libre
software". (But not "free software"; that term has its own problem that
causes real misunderstandings.)
But when it comes to the reputation of a thing, or what people think about
it, the name is almost entirely insignificant in the long run. Just to prove
my point, consider the term "asbestos". Hearing that word makes you think of
cancer, an evil industry, etc, right? Well, "asbestos" was an industry
propaganda term, coming from an ancient Greek word that means
"inextinguishable", propping up the benefits of the material. But when the
general public finally understood just how harmful this stuff is, "asbestos"
became a really nasty word, so much so that modern pro-asbestos propaganda
often prefers to use the term "chrysotile" (a name for white asbestos, the
most common kind).
So when it comes to the operating system typically called "Linux", I don't
think it's accurate to say that people see that name and assume the whole
thing was done by Linus Torvalds. Most people probably don't even know the
name "Linus Torvalds", and for those who do, they associate him with Linux
more because he allows himself to be associated with it, than because his
name is similar to its name. I think if the FSF were to proudly exclaim that
it played a key role in the development of "Linux" (rather than insisting on
"GNU/Linux" and explaining a bunch of technicalities), the FSF would have a
whole lot more influence on things than it currently does.
Of course the concern about confusion arises too, but in practice, I've never
seen anyone who was confused by the use of the term "Linux". Most people
understand Linux and Android to be different things, and when talking about
the kernel, the term "Linux kernel" is almost universal (the kernel is even
hosted on the "kernel.org" domain, rather than "linux.org" or something
similar).
Overall, I don't care what term you use, but I think bickering over what to
call systems in this particular category, which most people call "Linux", is
unnecessary. Personally, I typically say "Linux". If the topic of the FSF
were to come up, I might point out that the FSF "really started Linux" or
"made a large part of Linux". I don't see much point in mixing in confusing
explanations of why "Linux" is really not the most perfect term.
