7 ms·

I thought google would do something like this. They didn't want to fully embrace linux so they locked all the freedom of linux away behind restrictrions in andr

I thought google would do something like this. They didn't want to fully embrace linux so they locked all the freedom of linux away behind restrictrions in android until they had a replacement and now they are going to try to drop gnu+linux anything GPL they can... The new kernel is MIT/BSD... Welcome to Tivoization all over again. I get the need for a better kernel, the gnu+linux kernel is out of control at over 14mil+loc, but why not put that effort into making a minix3 style microkernel that's gpl, or fix hurd? I wish people understood the dangers of BSD style licenses, I hope this fails, the last thing we need is another proprietary OS on a device they built on the backs of the FOSS community but doesn't give back in a meaningful way. We don't need another OSX, or android apps on your PC, we need someone with the money and will to fix the future of GNU!

caf 10y ago
I would wager that the majority of those sloc are not compiled into the typical Android kernel, though.
- em3rgent0rdr 10y ago
  Right. And we have tools like git which are able to handle large codebases. People shouldn't conflate high LoC counts with bloat.
geofft 10y ago
Even if someone with the money and will somehow wanted to sponsor the development of GNU, why would that fix it? The same story will just play out again. If you want this fixed, get someone with the money and the will to end the copyrightability of software. Or find a different solution to let users have control over their computing even when they don't have control over the OS - there's no fundamental reason why this should require legal solutions, as opposed to, say, cryptographic ones.
jsmeaton 10y ago
I don't understand the dangers of BSD style licenses, can you expand on that a bit please?
- sitharus 10y ago
  The "danger" is BSD licenses are highly permissive, you can take BSD licensed software, modify it and sell it and never return the changes to the community or release the source to customers. This means all the work of the OSS community is 'free' for corporations to take.
  - stephenr 10y ago
    So basically, if you make some improvements to something, you get to control those improvements. What a horrible idea that is. Note: this is clearly sarcasm, and it pains me that I need to put this here, but some won't get it.
    - tortasaur 10y ago
      Considering it doesn't sustain the free software you needed to improve in the first place, yes, that is a terrible idea.
    - pavanky 10y ago
      Eh you are not losing control with GPL. If you choose not to contribute back (when using a non copy left license), you are choosing to not provide control to anyone else.
  - afsina 10y ago
    Coders are not idiots, they know that possibility and still use the license for their open source code. So, "danger" is a silly word to describe this.
- jvreeland 10y ago
  This is a pretty simplistic explanation, but the BSD license doesn't require you to provide the source to customers. Essentially the argument is that companies will consume FOSS software without contributing back improvements to the determent of the community.
  - 10y ago
loeg 10y ago
> the last thing we need is another proprietary OS on a device they built on the backs of the FOSS community If Google builds this kernel from the ground up and chooses to license it MIT, how is any binary derived from that "built on the backs of the FOSS community?"
- em3rgent0rdr 10y ago
  because the android system was built off the labour of the Linux community.
- flukus 10y ago
  They would likely keep a lot of the gnu userland. Let's not forget that google themselves are built on the backs of the FOSS community, without FOSS there might not be a google at all, certainly not an android.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    They would likely keep a lot of the gnu userland. There's nothing to keep, Android already doesn't use the GNU userland. They built their own libc (bionic) and the commands are all using busybox, IIRC.
yellowapple 10y ago
"The new kernel is MIT/BSD... Welcome to Tivoization all over again." 1) Linux doesn't prevent tivoization, either; it uses the GPLv2, whereas anti-tivoization language was introduced in the GPLv3. 2) If Google wanted to make this proprietary, they could've made this proprietary. Why bother releasing it under an absurdly-permissive license if they wanted it to be proprietary? "I wish people understood the dangers of BSD style licenses" I wish people understood the dangers of copyleft licenses, particularly strict ones. The same exact rules preventing reuse in proprietary products apply to other FOSS projects as well. The GPL's "compatibility" with other FOSS licenses is a one-way street. BSD-style licenses are literally as free as you can get (short of a license that's functionally equivalent to a public domain dedication). Any other license adds restrictions and reduces freedoms. Absolutely nothing about this project indicates "proprietary"; the license choice indicates the exact opposite.

caf 10y ago

I would wager that the majority of those sloc are not compiled into the typical Android kernel, though.

em3rgent0rdr 10y ago
Right. And we have tools like git which are able to handle large codebases. People shouldn't conflate high LoC counts with bloat.

geofft 10y ago

Even if someone with the money and will somehow wanted to sponsor the development of GNU, why would that fix it? The same story will just play out again. If you want this fixed, get someone with the money and the will to end the copyrightability of software. Or find a different solution to let users have control over their computing even when they don't have control over the OS - there's no fundamental reason why this should require legal solutions, as opposed to, say, cryptographic ones.

jsmeaton 10y ago

I don't understand the dangers of BSD style licenses, can you expand on that a bit please?

sitharus 10y ago
The "danger" is BSD licenses are highly permissive, you can take BSD licensed software, modify it and sell it and never return the changes to the community or release the source to customers. This means all the work of the OSS community is 'free' for corporations to take.
- stephenr 10y ago
  So basically, if you make some improvements to something, you get to control those improvements. What a horrible idea that is. Note: this is clearly sarcasm, and it pains me that I need to put this here, but some won't get it.
  - tortasaur 10y ago
    Considering it doesn't sustain the free software you needed to improve in the first place, yes, that is a terrible idea.
  - pavanky 10y ago
    Eh you are not losing control with GPL. If you choose not to contribute back (when using a non copy left license), you are choosing to not provide control to anyone else.
- afsina 10y ago
  Coders are not idiots, they know that possibility and still use the license for their open source code. So, "danger" is a silly word to describe this.
jvreeland 10y ago
This is a pretty simplistic explanation, but the BSD license doesn't require you to provide the source to customers. Essentially the argument is that companies will consume FOSS software without contributing back improvements to the determent of the community.
- 10y ago

loeg 10y ago

> the last thing we need is another proprietary OS on a device they built on the backs of the FOSS community If Google builds this kernel from the ground up and chooses to license it MIT, how is any binary derived from that "built on the backs of the FOSS community?"

em3rgent0rdr 10y ago
because the android system was built off the labour of the Linux community.
flukus 10y ago
They would likely keep a lot of the gnu userland. Let's not forget that google themselves are built on the backs of the FOSS community, without FOSS there might not be a google at all, certainly not an android.
- icebraining 10y ago
  They would likely keep a lot of the gnu userland. There's nothing to keep, Android already doesn't use the GNU userland. They built their own libc (bionic) and the commands are all using busybox, IIRC.

yellowapple 10y ago

"The new kernel is MIT/BSD... Welcome to Tivoization all over again." 1) Linux doesn't prevent tivoization, either; it uses the GPLv2, whereas anti-tivoization language was introduced in the GPLv3. 2) If Google wanted to make this proprietary, they could've made this proprietary. Why bother releasing it under an absurdly-permissive license if they wanted it to be proprietary? "I wish people understood the dangers of BSD style licenses" I wish people understood the dangers of copyleft licenses, particularly strict ones. The same exact rules preventing reuse in proprietary products apply to other FOSS projects as well. The GPL's "compatibility" with other FOSS licenses is a one-way street. BSD-style licenses are literally as free as you can get (short of a license that's functionally equivalent to a public domain dedication). Any other license adds restrictions and reduces freedoms. Absolutely nothing about this project indicates "proprietary"; the license choice indicates the exact opposite.