6 ms·

And as a result, now we switches running Linux! https://cumulusnetworks.com/products/cumulus-linux/ https://cumulusnetworks.com/products/cumulus-linux/

by _Adam 9y ago

prodmerc 9y ago
Honestly, the existence of Linux (and other open source software) is a miracle after seeing all the bullshit around copyright and licensing these days...
- 3131s 9y ago
  I always wonder how things would be if even half of the time invested in closed source had instead gone toward open source software. The open source ecosystem is already incredible, and IMO more capable in most cases than the closed source alternatives.
  - tajen 9y ago
    I'm realizing you're right. If we want to change humanity, Linux is quite a good way to start. Not all OSS is created equal, though. It's not by switching any end-user commercial product to GPL that we'll make an impact. It's more important for application servers, routers, OS, drivers, DBs, and in general libs that can be reused by someone else. If Snapchat were under APL Affero, would we care? What's in it for me if I switch my app to OSS? I'm giving 1% revenue to OSS. But I have a huge feeling that it's far from enough – Any commercial infra (DB+OS+AppServer) would have cost me 60% of my income. The masterpiece of OSS that really advanced humanity is principally Linux – It seems it's the main one that's worth funding, isn't it?
    - EGreg 9y ago
      Umm how about: WebKit (for browsers) Wikipedia (for knowledge) Wordpress (powers 20% of web) Git, Mercurial Apache, NGinX PHP, Node.js and all the languages All the Web Frameworks lame, ffmpeg, tons of other stuff as well
      - csydas 9y ago
        Seeing a list like this and realizing just how much for-pay software is built right on top of all these OSS projects makes it seem a bit farcical, especially in light of the discussion being about copy right; the products being contented under the guise of copy right to protect the business' profit are themselves just facades^ on top of open and free software. It's really hard to accept programs like Cisco's licensing for the hardware when the software that makes it run is just built right on top of open software. Yes, it's been modified to work better and I'm not saying they don't have a right to use it and resell it after modification, but it feels very weird to know that it was built with free and open software. The fact that so much of modern tech seems to be just rebranding already open source programs strikes me as a bit silly. The innovation at play seems to be the marketing rather than the actual technology being sold. ^Take facade in its denotation here, not connotations.
- cm2187 9y ago
  Open source also comes with all sort of string attached. Licenses that either force you to share the code or restict it in certain applications, etc. It's not a free world (as in you downloaded it you do whatever you want with it).
  - YCode 9y ago
    What's a practical example of this?
    - anon1385 9y ago
      Anything under the AGPL. For example just running AGPL software anywhere on Google's servers would open them up to having to open source the entire of Google search. That's why Google has banned the AGPL: https://opensource.google.com/docs/using/agpl-policy/ https://opensource.google.com/docs/using/agpl-policy/
      - cm2187 9y ago
        Actually here is a practical example of the sort of annoyance resulting from FOSS licenses. Google developped an excellent library that they open sourced called Google OR Tools [1]. It not only provides access to Google's in house linear programming optimiser, but also acts as a wrapper around other solvers, some free, some commercial, so that you just change a parameter to try another solver. However because of conflicting licenses or licenses restrictions, google cannot distribute binaries that include certain FOSS solvers, like GLPK. So to be able to use GLPK you need to recompile the whole project yourself. If you go on the Google OR tool forum, you will see that it's not a simple CTR+SHIFT+B, everyone is struggling, and I wasted a lot of time trying to do this. That's what I mean by strings attached. [1] https://developers.google.com/optimization/ https://developers.google.com/optimization/
      - pdkl95 9y ago
        > running AGPL software anywhere on Google's servers ... entire of Google search This is misinformed fear mongering (or maybe FUD?). The AGPL only requires that you offer the source code to the "Corresponding Source"[1] of the AGPL licensed program, if you modified[2] it, to anyone using the program over a network. Merely using an unmodified AGPL licensed program doesn't require anything. Just like other GPL-family licenses, the AGPL is not an "EULA" and doesn't apply to simply using software. The only way Google's search software could be affected is if AGPL licensed code was added, which is why they have (with good reason) a policy to not do that. Similar risks would apply to including proprietary code, too. [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html#section1 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html#section1 [2] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html#section13 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html#section13
- Clownshoesms 9y ago
  It's good to see it's made a difference. Back in the day, open source felt like a bit of an edgy proposition with a lot of ney-sayers. Microsoft very front and center there. Now we can get free IDE's versus the money they were trying to charge for Visual Studio or MSDN. And they wonder why developers dislike them.
- squarefoot 9y ago
  There are still huge profit opportunities behind Open Source software; ironically, the same openness that helps small startups to avoid high licensing costs of proprietary software also helped big corporations to reshape their product line, profiting from community work, offering certifications and support which in the end turned in more money. This IMO is why Linux and *BSD are alive and well today virtually killing almost every other proprietary Unix around. It's not Linux health that concerns me but what the Linux Foundation wants to do with it in the future. Call me paranoid but I don't trust them.
  - markdown 9y ago
    You're paranoid.
    - squarefoot 9y ago
      I hope so, though I'm not alone apparently. https://fossbytes.com/why-linux-foundations-latest-change-is-a-bad-new-for-open-source/ https://fossbytes.com/why-linux-foundations-latest-change-is... https://www.linuxjournal.com/content/controversy-linux-foundation https://www.linuxjournal.com/content/controversy-linux-found... http://techrights.org/2016/09/02/linux-gpl-foes-inside-linux-foundation/ http://techrights.org/2016/09/02/linux-gpl-foes-inside-linux...
iamacynic 9y ago
this is the correct answer. do not attempt to lobby corporations to change their revenue models; that is insane, and stupid. simply come up with a better solution, and use it. problem solved.
- retox 9y ago
  And hope you don't "infringe" on any patents in the process... Easier said than done but it's definitely the long-term solution.

And as a result, now we switches running Linux! https://cumulusnetworks.com/products/cumulus-linux/ https://cumulusnetworks.com/products/cumulus-linux/

by _Adam 9y ago

And as a result, now we switches running Linux! https://cumulusnetworks.com/products/cumulus-linux/ https://cumulusnetworks.com/products/cumulus-linux/

prodmerc 9y ago

Honestly, the existence of Linux (and other open source software) is a miracle after seeing all the bullshit around copyright and licensing these days...

3131s 9y ago
I always wonder how things would be if even half of the time invested in closed source had instead gone toward open source software. The open source ecosystem is already incredible, and IMO more capable in most cases than the closed source alternatives.
- tajen 9y ago
  I'm realizing you're right. If we want to change humanity, Linux is quite a good way to start. Not all OSS is created equal, though. It's not by switching any end-user commercial product to GPL that we'll make an impact. It's more important for application servers, routers, OS, drivers, DBs, and in general libs that can be reused by someone else. If Snapchat were under APL Affero, would we care? What's in it for me if I switch my app to OSS? I'm giving 1% revenue to OSS. But I have a huge feeling that it's far from enough – Any commercial infra (DB+OS+AppServer) would have cost me 60% of my income. The masterpiece of OSS that really advanced humanity is principally Linux – It seems it's the main one that's worth funding, isn't it?
  - EGreg 9y ago
    Umm how about: WebKit (for browsers) Wikipedia (for knowledge) Wordpress (powers 20% of web) Git, Mercurial Apache, NGinX PHP, Node.js and all the languages All the Web Frameworks lame, ffmpeg, tons of other stuff as well
    - csydas 9y ago
      Seeing a list like this and realizing just how much for-pay software is built right on top of all these OSS projects makes it seem a bit farcical, especially in light of the discussion being about copy right; the products being contented under the guise of copy right to protect the business' profit are themselves just facades^ on top of open and free software. It's really hard to accept programs like Cisco's licensing for the hardware when the software that makes it run is just built right on top of open software. Yes, it's been modified to work better and I'm not saying they don't have a right to use it and resell it after modification, but it feels very weird to know that it was built with free and open software. The fact that so much of modern tech seems to be just rebranding already open source programs strikes me as a bit silly. The innovation at play seems to be the marketing rather than the actual technology being sold. ^Take facade in its denotation here, not connotations.
cm2187 9y ago
Open source also comes with all sort of string attached. Licenses that either force you to share the code or restict it in certain applications, etc. It's not a free world (as in you downloaded it you do whatever you want with it).
- YCode 9y ago
  What's a practical example of this?
  - anon1385 9y ago
    Anything under the AGPL. For example just running AGPL software anywhere on Google's servers would open them up to having to open source the entire of Google search. That's why Google has banned the AGPL: https://opensource.google.com/docs/using/agpl-policy/ https://opensource.google.com/docs/using/agpl-policy/
    - cm2187 9y ago
      Actually here is a practical example of the sort of annoyance resulting from FOSS licenses. Google developped an excellent library that they open sourced called Google OR Tools [1]. It not only provides access to Google's in house linear programming optimiser, but also acts as a wrapper around other solvers, some free, some commercial, so that you just change a parameter to try another solver. However because of conflicting licenses or licenses restrictions, google cannot distribute binaries that include certain FOSS solvers, like GLPK. So to be able to use GLPK you need to recompile the whole project yourself. If you go on the Google OR tool forum, you will see that it's not a simple CTR+SHIFT+B, everyone is struggling, and I wasted a lot of time trying to do this. That's what I mean by strings attached. [1] https://developers.google.com/optimization/ https://developers.google.com/optimization/
    - pdkl95 9y ago
      > running AGPL software anywhere on Google's servers ... entire of Google search This is misinformed fear mongering (or maybe FUD?). The AGPL only requires that you offer the source code to the "Corresponding Source"[1] of the AGPL licensed program, if you modified[2] it, to anyone using the program over a network. Merely using an unmodified AGPL licensed program doesn't require anything. Just like other GPL-family licenses, the AGPL is not an "EULA" and doesn't apply to simply using software. The only way Google's search software could be affected is if AGPL licensed code was added, which is why they have (with good reason) a policy to not do that. Similar risks would apply to including proprietary code, too. [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html#section1 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html#section1 [2] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html#section13 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html#section13
Clownshoesms 9y ago
It's good to see it's made a difference. Back in the day, open source felt like a bit of an edgy proposition with a lot of ney-sayers. Microsoft very front and center there. Now we can get free IDE's versus the money they were trying to charge for Visual Studio or MSDN. And they wonder why developers dislike them.
squarefoot 9y ago
There are still huge profit opportunities behind Open Source software; ironically, the same openness that helps small startups to avoid high licensing costs of proprietary software also helped big corporations to reshape their product line, profiting from community work, offering certifications and support which in the end turned in more money. This IMO is why Linux and *BSD are alive and well today virtually killing almost every other proprietary Unix around. It's not Linux health that concerns me but what the Linux Foundation wants to do with it in the future. Call me paranoid but I don't trust them.
- markdown 9y ago
  You're paranoid.
  - squarefoot 9y ago
    I hope so, though I'm not alone apparently. https://fossbytes.com/why-linux-foundations-latest-change-is-a-bad-new-for-open-source/ https://fossbytes.com/why-linux-foundations-latest-change-is... https://www.linuxjournal.com/content/controversy-linux-foundation https://www.linuxjournal.com/content/controversy-linux-found... http://techrights.org/2016/09/02/linux-gpl-foes-inside-linux-foundation/ http://techrights.org/2016/09/02/linux-gpl-foes-inside-linux...

iamacynic 9y ago

this is the correct answer. do not attempt to lobby corporations to change their revenue models; that is insane, and stupid. simply come up with a better solution, and use it. problem solved.

retox 9y ago
And hope you don't "infringe" on any patents in the process... Easier said than done but it's definitely the long-term solution.