4 ms·

> broader constituency of open source communities By this do you mean projects with closable source licenses (Apache/BSD/MIT) and the companies that prefer to

> broader constituency of open source communities By this do you mean projects with closable source licenses (Apache/BSD/MIT) and the companies that prefer to use them? Does this mean we'll see more sub projects like the CNCF which are focused on non-GPL OSS? >I would rather have VMware in than out I agree in general that a big tent model works well, but I think the question here is more about what it means to be 'in'. Maybe you have more nuts and bolts insight into it. From the outside, I think the feeling is that membership was as a symbol that large organizations support Free software; the world is changing to embrace FOSS; etc. But now it looks more like there's no ideology involved and it's more like NASCAR sponsorship at best. At worst, it looks like 'pay us and we'll won't enforce the GPL as it pertains to you'. I'm not surprised pitchforks are getting rustled.

ThrowawayR2 10y ago
> But now it looks more like there's no ideology involved ... It's the Linux Foundation, not the GPL Foundation or the FOSS Foundation. And Linus has made his position abundantly clear on the LKML that the GPL is a tool that serves Linux, not the other way around. Therefore, it shouldn't be all that surprising that there is no ideology involved.
- fnord123 10y ago
  Everything you say is true. But Linus isn't the only person whose opinion matters. The community built around the GPL UNIX-alike kernel is far larger than the ones around the open source BSDs. The license and ideology were, afaict, a large component in that.
  - josefx 10y ago
    > The community built around the GPL UNIX-alike kernel You mean the GPL v2 kernel that wont ever migrate to GPL v3, keeping it incompatible with anything a GPL purist should touch. Meanwhile Debian GNU/Hurd still isn't production ready.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > The community built around the GPL UNIX-alike kernel is far larger than the ones around the open source BSDs. The license and ideology were, afaict, a large component in that. AFAICT, the only thing the license has to do with it is that it was available under a F/OSS license at a time when all other alternatives were legally encumbered, enabling it to grab the early mindshare and benefit from network effects.

ThrowawayR2 10y ago

> But now it looks more like there's no ideology involved ... It's the Linux Foundation, not the GPL Foundation or the FOSS Foundation. And Linus has made his position abundantly clear on the LKML that the GPL is a tool that serves Linux, not the other way around. Therefore, it shouldn't be all that surprising that there is no ideology involved.

fnord123 10y ago
Everything you say is true. But Linus isn't the only person whose opinion matters. The community built around the GPL UNIX-alike kernel is far larger than the ones around the open source BSDs. The license and ideology were, afaict, a large component in that.
- josefx 10y ago
  > The community built around the GPL UNIX-alike kernel You mean the GPL v2 kernel that wont ever migrate to GPL v3, keeping it incompatible with anything a GPL purist should touch. Meanwhile Debian GNU/Hurd still isn't production ready.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > The community built around the GPL UNIX-alike kernel is far larger than the ones around the open source BSDs. The license and ideology were, afaict, a large component in that. AFAICT, the only thing the license has to do with it is that it was available under a F/OSS license at a time when all other alternatives were legally encumbered, enabling it to grab the early mindshare and benefit from network effects.