4 ms·

The rights granted to the Linux kernel are "stranded" - the kernel can't do anything by itself so licensing to only it doesn't matter, so Google paid to redo th

The rights granted to the Linux kernel are "stranded" - the kernel can't do anything by itself so licensing to only it doesn't matter, so Google paid to redo the GNU libraries under a BSD license to strand the kernel rights. Even so, with Fuschia Google is replacing the Linux kernel, too, with its own BSD (or MIT) licensed kernel. So, BSD is actually taking the whole field, particularly measured by sales.

pjmlp 10y ago
The license yes, but not the BSD operating systems variants. How much do you think companies will bother to give back once they alienated GPL software, given the actual contributions? Nothing of relevance I tell you, just enough to keep the masses happy, AOSP style. I won't care, as I said I mostly use commercial software anyway, but it will feel good to say "I told you so".
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > How much do you think companies will bother to give back once they alienated GPL software, given the actual contributions? Plenty of permissively-licensed software projects have strong contributions from commercial users.
  - pjmlp 10y ago
    Such as? The AOSP, BSD and LLVM ones surely aren't such projects. AOSP doesn't get any of the Google Services stack nor OEMs changes. The BSD hardly get any updates from all those routers and embedded devices using them, to the point they were forced to beg for donnations last year. clang is being adopted by embedded vendors that had to contribute their changes back to GCC and now don't need to keep doing it.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > Such as? SQLite and Postgres are the main examples I think of for this. > The AOSP, BSD and LLVM ones surely aren't such projects. AOSP is almost entirely ongoing contribution by the primary commercial user, so it would probably fit the description, though I was thinking of—without having stated—specifically third-party commercial users, so it wasn't what I had in mind. > clang is being adopted by embedded vendors that had to contribute their changes back to GCC and now don't need to keep doing it. Clang has a lot of corporate contributors, including all of the big three tech companies. Not sure if any of the big contributors have closed downstream derivatives or if they are just open-source users contributing back. Sure, copyleft prevents downstream use that doesn't contribute back, but it doesn't necessarily maximize contributions back.
    - Nomentatus 10y ago
      BSD licensed projects include the Android libraries (and now Fuschia, too.) Huge corporate investment there from Google. BSD Linux, sadly, is playing the part of the poor orphan, as you say. For my part I agree freeloading is a problem, but clearly GPL2 and 3 hasn't solved it. It certainly isn't a general solution. True, the Linux kernel gets real support from a couple of companies (principally Redhat) but everyone else freeloads. Remove the patent grabs and maybe you'd see more contributions, but maybe a new form of license is needed, or much better: we need the govt to fund this infrastructure; the present situation is like having volunteers build some highway some of the time while the government sits on its hands. Crazy if you ask me. Of course, Apple and Microsoft (and maybe Google) who want to have everyone on their wholly-owned toll roads would disagree strongly with me.
- Nomentatus 10y ago
  The answer seems to be that Android, before Google acquired it, took up Linux thinking it was a bit better than BSD alternatives without realizing that the license downsides would inevitably mean it's replacement (starting with the GNU libraries.) That naive view of real license costs was tragic for the BSD operating systems variants and society as a whole, wasting immense resources getting back to a BSD license they could, indeed, have just started with. Sadly, GPL - because it punishes contributions with patent loss, among other things - has a terrible record in curing freeloading. Yup, I agree it's a real problem. Nope, no very good solution in sight.

pjmlp 10y ago

The license yes, but not the BSD operating systems variants. How much do you think companies will bother to give back once they alienated GPL software, given the actual contributions? Nothing of relevance I tell you, just enough to keep the masses happy, AOSP style. I won't care, as I said I mostly use commercial software anyway, but it will feel good to say "I told you so".

dragonwriter 10y ago
> How much do you think companies will bother to give back once they alienated GPL software, given the actual contributions? Plenty of permissively-licensed software projects have strong contributions from commercial users.
- pjmlp 10y ago
  Such as? The AOSP, BSD and LLVM ones surely aren't such projects. AOSP doesn't get any of the Google Services stack nor OEMs changes. The BSD hardly get any updates from all those routers and embedded devices using them, to the point they were forced to beg for donnations last year. clang is being adopted by embedded vendors that had to contribute their changes back to GCC and now don't need to keep doing it.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > Such as? SQLite and Postgres are the main examples I think of for this. > The AOSP, BSD and LLVM ones surely aren't such projects. AOSP is almost entirely ongoing contribution by the primary commercial user, so it would probably fit the description, though I was thinking of—without having stated—specifically third-party commercial users, so it wasn't what I had in mind. > clang is being adopted by embedded vendors that had to contribute their changes back to GCC and now don't need to keep doing it. Clang has a lot of corporate contributors, including all of the big three tech companies. Not sure if any of the big contributors have closed downstream derivatives or if they are just open-source users contributing back. Sure, copyleft prevents downstream use that doesn't contribute back, but it doesn't necessarily maximize contributions back.
  - Nomentatus 10y ago
    BSD licensed projects include the Android libraries (and now Fuschia, too.) Huge corporate investment there from Google. BSD Linux, sadly, is playing the part of the poor orphan, as you say. For my part I agree freeloading is a problem, but clearly GPL2 and 3 hasn't solved it. It certainly isn't a general solution. True, the Linux kernel gets real support from a couple of companies (principally Redhat) but everyone else freeloads. Remove the patent grabs and maybe you'd see more contributions, but maybe a new form of license is needed, or much better: we need the govt to fund this infrastructure; the present situation is like having volunteers build some highway some of the time while the government sits on its hands. Crazy if you ask me. Of course, Apple and Microsoft (and maybe Google) who want to have everyone on their wholly-owned toll roads would disagree strongly with me.
Nomentatus 10y ago
The answer seems to be that Android, before Google acquired it, took up Linux thinking it was a bit better than BSD alternatives without realizing that the license downsides would inevitably mean it's replacement (starting with the GNU libraries.) That naive view of real license costs was tragic for the BSD operating systems variants and society as a whole, wasting immense resources getting back to a BSD license they could, indeed, have just started with. Sadly, GPL - because it punishes contributions with patent loss, among other things - has a terrible record in curing freeloading. Yup, I agree it's a real problem. Nope, no very good solution in sight.