Linux

59677 readers

747 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

249

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

submitted 5 days ago by ZkhqrD5o@lemmy.world to c/linux@lemmy.ml

119 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

[–] kjo@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

I am making an argument that copyleft licenses such as GPL are better than permissive ones because of the extra guarantees, primarily to the benefit to communities instead of corporations.

You on the other hand are making a false equivalence.

This is what i wrote:

If corporations want to release a software based on modified version of my code, I want a guarantee that the modified code to be available to the community too.

This is what you wrote:

What you are saying is, if they extend the Open Source software, you do not want the Open Source version anymore. You only want theirs.

The false equivalence is that because i desire communities to be the primary beneficiary of my code and its modifications, then i must also "... you do not want the Open Source version anymore. You only want theirs."

These are not equivalent. You have begun using a logical fallacy. More elaboration of my arguments will be fruitless. Good bye.

[–] LeFantome@programming.dev 1 points 1 hour ago

Don't whip out "logical fallacy" if you cannot follow basic logic.

If you want to talk about false equivalence, it is that you are equating "corporations not giving you something" with "corporations taking something from you". These are NOT the same thing.

The code that the community has access to and the benefits that the code offers the community stand alone. If you write code and contribute it to an Open Source project then the "community" around that project is the primary beneficiary. No other facts are required to support this statement. It is self-evident.

You seem to be suggesting that "your work" and "the benefit" disappear for the community when a corporation writes code that they do not give you. If you did not know that the company did this, would all "the benefit" still disappear? What is the mechanism for that? Is there a disturbance in the force that you are sensitive to that I have not experienced?

The only "benefit" that has been "lost" is the benefit that the corporation added under a non-free license. And it has not been "lost". It was just not contributed.

I totally get that you do not want companies to benefit from your work and that you want to force contribution from them. That is super fine with me. I get that you think the GPL helps further your goals. Great. Use the GPL. But why do you have to make factually incorrect arguments about permissive licenses in the process? Why not just promote what you think is unique and good about the GPL?

People fall for this shit. I have spoken to so many people that think "they took it proprietary" somehow means the old Open Source code ceases to exist or was somehow taken away. And they think this because of comments like yours. But all the code is still there. It is still as available and useful as it was before. You can still do everything and anything with it that you wanted to do previously. It is still "free".