Linux

59621 readers

416 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

Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
No misinformation
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

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

founded 6 years ago

MODERATORS

nooter692@lemmy.ml

AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml

MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml

cypherpunks@lemmy.ml

cyclohexane@lemmy.ml

d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz

236

Is the FOSS world in danger of a corporate takeover, thanks to pushover licenses? (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 day ago by ZkhqrD5o@lemmy.world to c/linux@lemmy.ml

100 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I ask this because I think of the recent switch of Ubuntu to the Rust recode of the GNU core utils, which use an MIT license. There are many Rust recodes of GPL software that re-license it as a pushover MIT or Apache licenses. I worry these relicensing efforts this will significantly harm the FOSS ecosystem. Is this reason to start worrying or is it not that bad?

IMO, if the FOSS world makes something public, with extensive liberties, then the only thing that should be asked in return is that people preserve these liberties, like the GPL successfully enforces. These pushover licenses preserve nothing.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 3 points 16 hours ago

We didn’t want to control or manipulate people, using our code to extort a particular behavior out of them.

The FOSS community, and even the community of developers on single large FOSS projects, is large and diverse... The royal "We" doesn't really apply at all, even in the case of Linus and the kernel - sure, he's a clear leader, but he's hardly in control of the larger community and their wants.

I think the current state of open source licensing is much as it should be... MIT has its place, as does GPL, and if we're going to pretend that intellectual property is about protecting creators, then it's the creators who should get to choose.

In the world I live in, intellectual property is a barrier to entry that's primarily used by organizations with a lot of power (money) to prevent others from disturbing their plans of making more money. MIT seems most appropriate for individual creators to assure that that world doesn't come crashing into their bedroom with CDOs and lawsuits. GPL is "cute" - but I think most practitioners of GPL licensing don't have any clue how far out of their depth they are if they should ever seek actual enforcement of their self-declared license terms. That's not to say GPL is toothless. It gives small players a tool to amplify the trouble they can make for those who would violate their license (primarily mode of violation being by use of the code so licensed.) But, other than making minor trouble for the bigger players, thus discouraging the bigger players from entangling with them, GPL isn't going to "make" the bigger players do much of anything other than stay away.

GPL does shape the community, it has its effects, I just get tired of hearing about the specific immediate legal language of it, because that's far from the actual effects it has.