Linux

59608 readers

374 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

235

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

[–] LeFantome@programming.dev 0 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Adding to this, Google created Android, wrote all the source code, and released it as Open Source.

By definition, Google cannot take anything here. It is only a question of what they give way in the future.

What Google wants is for people to use Google services. So they are making that less and less optional. There is no way for them to mandate this in Open Source and so they are shrinking the size of AOSP.

Online “services” are the greatest threat to software freedom. What kind of license is used has little to do with it.

Since this is a “GPL saves the world” thread, how would the GPL change anything? Android is mostly permissively licensed. But let’s assume that it is all GPL. Since we are talking about code Google wrote, nothing changes at all.

And the Linux kernel is already GPL licensed. Does that mean I can run whatever I want on my phone?

No. The threats to freedom in the Android space have literally nothing to do with permissive vs copyleft.

[–] DFX4509B@lemmy.wtf 1 points 8 hours ago

So far Google services aren't being mandated on the desktop like they increasingly are on phones, yet, at least.

WEI threatened to push that once already, plus Google trying, again, this time with an actual chance of success given the Win10 EOL combined with the dumpster fire that Win11 is for the SKUs that normal people can legally access, to push Android to desktops in addition to mobile devices, certainly doesn't help matters either, and if Google gets away with locking down Android successfully, that'll probably embolden them to try to lock down the web at large with WEI again too.