this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2026
30 points (96.9% liked)

Linux

63471 readers
995 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 6 years ago
MODERATORS
nooter692@lemmy.ml
AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml
MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml
cypherpunks@lemmy.ml
cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz
30
What sense is licensing operating system on BSD license? (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 day ago by mlxdy@lemmy.world to c/linux@lemmy.ml
20 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Change my mind.

Companies are just taking BSD code and don't contribute to it. At the end they're selecting Linux even if there's licensing risk and they have contribute to code. Why? Because Linux have a lot of contributors, that makes it much more advanced system with more features. Also companies which want to support Linux don't have to worry that someone would close their code or code they funded with money. It's not about competition but collaboration. GPL license allowed us also to sell own open-source solutions.

FreeBSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD are behind Linux. I love that systems (especially OpenBSD), but I don't see a point in contributing or donating to them. Instead of being ready to use solutions they're trying to be base for commercial closed-source products and it would be great as contributors could get something from that, but they get nothing.

I understand that BSD see closed source as something cool and way to commercialize software, but in today times where a lot of devices have 24/7 access to internet, microphones, cameras and at the same time to sensitive data it's extremely dangerous. Closed source is used to hide backdoors, acts of surveillance and keeping monopoly on market which obviously stop evolution of software.

Please tell me how BSD license can be good solution for operating system. It's not about offending BSD, but as someone who love open source software I hate closed source software I would like to know how I can defend this license.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] reelhoomanbeen@lemmy.today 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

And still some idiots will sit by as we replace gnu uttils with non gpl rust rewrites cause reasona, we're destroying what made linux what it is today bit by bit

[–] hyacin@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

[–] reelhoomanbeen@lemmy.today 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I don't have any issues with rust at all, i actually thinks its neat from what i have heard abt it (not a programmer) i just hate that they didn't use the a good license, also why do they all need to rewrite actually good things in rust instead of working on new projects and building new shit, there are a lot of programmes in need of a foss alternative

[–] hyacin@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Oh I don't either, just a perfectly fitting meme. Especially when you look at it from the angle of "replacing things that already work" and "rewriting everything in it."