304
Man pages maintenance suspended (lwn.net)
submitted 1 month ago by petsoi@discuss.tchncs.de to c/linux@lemmy.ml
77 comments fedilink hide all child comments

From: Alejandro Colomar <alx-AT-kernel.org>

Hi all,

As you know, I've been maintaining the Linux man-pages project for the last 4 years as a voluntary. I've been doing it in my free time, and no company has sponsored that work at all. At the moment, I cannot sustain this work economically any more, and will temporarily and indefinitely stop working on this project. If any company has interests in the future of the project, I'd welcome an offer to sponsor my work here; if so, please let me know.

Have a lovely day! Alex

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] fossphi@lemm.ee 9 points 1 month ago

I agree, but this is mostly an issue with permissive licenses like MIT. GPL and its variants have enough teeth in them to deal with shit like this. I'm scared of the rising popularity of these permissive licenses. A lot of indie devs have somehow been convinced by corpos that they should avoid the GPL and go with MIT and alike

[-] csm10495@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago

I might be misunderstanding the licenses so correct me if wrong.

Can companies use GPL code internally without release as long as the thing written with it doesn't get directly released to the public?

.. or does GPL pollute everything even if used internally for commercial purposes?

[-] fossphi@lemm.ee 4 points 1 month ago

I think it kicks in when you distribute. For example, let's say I have a fork of some GPL software and I'm maintaining it for myself. I don't need to share the changes if I'm the only one using it.

The point is that people using a software should be able to read and modify (and share) the source when they want to.

IANAL and all that good stuff

[-] skulbuny@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago

If it's only internal then technically the internal users should have access to the source code. Only the people who receive the software get the rights and freedoms of the GPL, no one else.

[-] propter_hog@hexbear.net 2 points 1 month ago

Oh I definitely agree with you there. I just think GPL is close but not close enough.

[-] skulbuny@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

AGPL? Google has a ban on all AGPL software. Sounds like if you write AGPL software, corporations won't steal it.

Code licensed under the GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL) MUST NOT be used at Google.

The license places restrictions on software used over a network which are extremely difficult for Google to comply with. Using AGPL software requires that anything it links to must also be licensed under the AGPL. Even if you think you aren’t linking to anything important, it still presents a huge risk to Google because of how integrated much of our code is. The risks heavily outweigh the benefits.

Any FLOSS license that makes a corporation shit its pants like this is good enough to start from IMO.

https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl-policy

this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2024
304 points (100.0% liked)

Linux

47950 readers
1523 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
nooter692@lemmy.ml
AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml
MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml
cypherpunks@lemmy.ml
cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz