Linux

61617 readers

622 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

AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml

nooter692@lemmy.ml

MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml

cypherpunks@lemmy.ml

cyclohexane@lemmy.ml

d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz

250

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

submitted 2 months 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

[–] jmbreuer@lemmy.ml 14 points 2 months ago (3 children)

It's not so much about forcing to contribute, but rather keeping companies from selling commercial forks/having checks against profiting from work that happens to be freely available.

[–] nous@programming.dev 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You can profit from GPL software. The only restriction is if you distribute it you also need to distribute modifications under the GPL.

GPL also does nothing for software as a service since it is never distributed.

GPL even explicitly allows selling GPL software. This is effectively what redhat do. They just need to distribute the source to those that they sell it to.

[–] crmsnbleyd@sopuli.xyz 3 points 2 months ago

Prograns like that are usually distributed under AGPL which protects server side software

And RHEL bit-for-bit compatible gratis alternatives exist, which is because of the GPL

[–] eleijeep@piefed.social 4 points 2 months ago

The GPL doesn't place any restrictions on selling or profiting from GPL licensed works. It only requires that anyone distributing the work provides the recipients with the same rights under the GPL, ie. the right to view, modify and redistribute the source code.

This means that a company cannot take a GPL licensed work and turn it into a proprietary product.

[–] SMillerNL@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

I’m thinking of the Apache project, and all the important projects it covers that are under an Apache license and I’m not sure where the sudden worry comes from.

HTTPD and Nginx have had very permissive licensing for years and seem to do fine.