4 ms·

> 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

> 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.