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

Linux

63471 readers
1057 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
[–] schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This debate is about as old as the existence of free licenses. I doubt anyone will have anything new to say in this thread.

One aspect that isn't raised very much is that for a company to maintain software (including their own fork of any software however licensed) costs developer time (= money). It may be cheaper to contribute back anyway, no matter the license, just in order to outsource that effort. If we are talking about software where this is true, companies have an incentive to work with the existing maintainers even if they aren't legally obliged to.

[–] jollyrogue@lemmy.ml 4 points 19 hours ago

This is the thing that people overlook. Carrying a patch set is a burden, and companies have to maintain the patch set. Upstream isn’t going to care about the patch set because not their problem, and they will make changes which benefit the open code in their repos.

I’ve seen a company modify a FOSS project to fit their needs and get stuck with a multi-year old version because their changes were incompatible with never versions. They had to scrap the system and start over.

Regardless of license, not contributing upstream creates a problem unless the company has the stomach to support the whole thing on their own.