5 ms·

The Linux Foundation is a corporate PR joke. Even Oracle, slayer of FLOSS projects for decades, and vmware, violating the GPL for the Linux kernel for years wit

The Linux Foundation is a corporate PR joke. Even Oracle, slayer of FLOSS projects for decades, and vmware, violating the GPL for the Linux kernel for years with ESX, are 'platinum members'[1]. At this point, any membership in this 'foundation' should be viewed a shallow attempt at marketing. 1. https://www.linuxfoundation.org/membership/members/ https://www.linuxfoundation.org/membership/members/

matt4077 8y ago
You're judging the foundation by who decides to give them half a million $ per year? If Oracle, or anyone else you don't like, donates to the EFF, or the Red Cross or whatever: does that also taint those organizations?
- mugsie 8y ago
  Sure, take their money, but don't give them a seat on the board of the organisation.
TomMarius 8y ago
Are the funds not used to develop Linux?
subway 8y ago
The Linux Foundation does do some pretty useful work. For instance, iirc, they facilitate much of the work on Let's Encrypt.
- craftyguy 8y ago
  AFAIK, they provide only administrative support (payroll, HR, etc). That's not really "much of" the work on Let's Encrypt. There's a whole lot of other facilitating not included in that.. like infrastructure (hosting, development, test), management, technical support, etc.
  - subway 8y ago
    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/facilitate#Verb https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/facilitate#Verb
    - craftyguy 8y ago
      There's a whole lot of other facilitating not included in that.. like infrastructure (hosting, development, test), management, technical support, etc.
  - sja 8y ago
    I think it's important to not underestimate the amount of time and effort that goes into the non-technical side of any organization.
- kashyapc 8y ago
  Yeah, I agree. FWIW, I've been participating in Linux Foundation's technical events since late 2012. Not everything they do is golden (w.r.t coordinating with open source communities or partnerships with companies), but for now their strengths outweigh their weaknesses.
pavs 8y ago
I don't understand the angst, are you saying they should not accept any donation for those companies?
- craftyguy 8y ago
  They should not grant membership to companies that have a demonstrated history of being hostile to FLOSS. But hey, who would say no to more money, amirite?
  - pavs 8y ago
    Would you say they should go as far as appending license that would prevent companies from using their software if they have a history of hostility towards them? Or only when it comes to receiving donations?
    - craftyguy 8y ago
      > appending license that would prevent companies from using their software No, that would defeat the purpose of FLOSS entirely. They should aggressively defend FLOSS licenses, which would include prosecuting some of their current members. If they allow members to take, for example, the Linux kernel, modify it, and not redistribute modifications to customers (as required by the GPL), then what exactly is the LF doing other than collecting membership dues from literally anyone that can afford it, and using funds to help members promote their 'we love open source' initiatives/marketing campaigns?
      - giancarlostoro 8y ago
        > and not redistribute modifications to customers (as required by the GPL) Upon request the code should be made available, specifically if it's been modified and you are running the software. But yeah they should be at least open towards customers about it (those who have a right to said source, but also they can redistribute it legally under the GPL license terms).
trasz 8y ago
VMWare violating the GPL license? No offence, but it's just mixing up FSF's PR with reality. Which is: VMWare can afford much better lawyers than FSF could, and if there really was a violation, they wouldn't give the project a green light, given that alternatives (operating systems under less restrictive licenses) are freely available.
- jononor 8y ago
  By this logic no company that can afford good lawyers would violate any laws. That clearly is not the case, just look at VW diesel emissions scandal for instance.
  - trasz 8y ago
    Okay, that's a good argument. But you cannot just assume a malice when there's much simpler explanation - and in this case there is.
    - jononor 8y ago
      Malice is not needed, it can be out of incompetence too.
- ghaff 8y ago
  It wasn't really just EFF PR, but it, for what it's worth (IANAL and this is just my opinion), rested on some very subtle points about which reasonable people disagreed. Here's something I wrote at the time: https://www.cnet.com/news/vmware-and-the-gpl-round-two/ https://www.cnet.com/news/vmware-and-the-gpl-round-two/
  - trasz 8y ago
    Being reasonable person is one thing, understanding licensing issues is something completely different. The whole thing boils down to one thing: whether something becomes a "derivative work" just due to being linked with code licensed under GPL. FSF says it does - and one could assume they know what they are talking about; after all it's their own license, right? Except that the GPL license doesn't really say that; it's just FSF's interpretation. While e.g. the Mozilla license states very clearly what is and what is not covered by the license, thus avoiding the problem, the GPL is unclear. There is, however, one very simple way to win any lawsuit that would claim that your binary blob violates the GPL: just make sure it's possible for you to demonstrate in court that your code can run with something else instead of the GPL thingie. If someone sued, say, NVidia, for putting their binary drivers into people's GNU kernels, they can point at the FreeBSD version of their driver: if it works without Linux, it clearly doesn't constitute a derived code; Linux is just one of the platforms it works with.

matt4077 8y ago

You're judging the foundation by who decides to give them half a million $ per year? If Oracle, or anyone else you don't like, donates to the EFF, or the Red Cross or whatever: does that also taint those organizations?

mugsie 8y ago
Sure, take their money, but don't give them a seat on the board of the organisation.

TomMarius 8y ago

Are the funds not used to develop Linux?

subway 8y ago

The Linux Foundation does do some pretty useful work. For instance, iirc, they facilitate much of the work on Let's Encrypt.

craftyguy 8y ago
AFAIK, they provide only administrative support (payroll, HR, etc). That's not really "much of" the work on Let's Encrypt. There's a whole lot of other facilitating not included in that.. like infrastructure (hosting, development, test), management, technical support, etc.
- subway 8y ago
  https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/facilitate#Verb https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/facilitate#Verb
  - craftyguy 8y ago
    There's a whole lot of other facilitating not included in that.. like infrastructure (hosting, development, test), management, technical support, etc.
- sja 8y ago
  I think it's important to not underestimate the amount of time and effort that goes into the non-technical side of any organization.
kashyapc 8y ago
Yeah, I agree. FWIW, I've been participating in Linux Foundation's technical events since late 2012. Not everything they do is golden (w.r.t coordinating with open source communities or partnerships with companies), but for now their strengths outweigh their weaknesses.

pavs 8y ago

I don't understand the angst, are you saying they should not accept any donation for those companies?

craftyguy 8y ago
They should not grant membership to companies that have a demonstrated history of being hostile to FLOSS. But hey, who would say no to more money, amirite?
- pavs 8y ago
  Would you say they should go as far as appending license that would prevent companies from using their software if they have a history of hostility towards them? Or only when it comes to receiving donations?
  - craftyguy 8y ago
    > appending license that would prevent companies from using their software No, that would defeat the purpose of FLOSS entirely. They should aggressively defend FLOSS licenses, which would include prosecuting some of their current members. If they allow members to take, for example, the Linux kernel, modify it, and not redistribute modifications to customers (as required by the GPL), then what exactly is the LF doing other than collecting membership dues from literally anyone that can afford it, and using funds to help members promote their 'we love open source' initiatives/marketing campaigns?
    - giancarlostoro 8y ago
      > and not redistribute modifications to customers (as required by the GPL) Upon request the code should be made available, specifically if it's been modified and you are running the software. But yeah they should be at least open towards customers about it (those who have a right to said source, but also they can redistribute it legally under the GPL license terms).

trasz 8y ago

VMWare violating the GPL license? No offence, but it's just mixing up FSF's PR with reality. Which is: VMWare can afford much better lawyers than FSF could, and if there really was a violation, they wouldn't give the project a green light, given that alternatives (operating systems under less restrictive licenses) are freely available.

jononor 8y ago
By this logic no company that can afford good lawyers would violate any laws. That clearly is not the case, just look at VW diesel emissions scandal for instance.
- trasz 8y ago
  Okay, that's a good argument. But you cannot just assume a malice when there's much simpler explanation - and in this case there is.
  - jononor 8y ago
    Malice is not needed, it can be out of incompetence too.
ghaff 8y ago
It wasn't really just EFF PR, but it, for what it's worth (IANAL and this is just my opinion), rested on some very subtle points about which reasonable people disagreed. Here's something I wrote at the time: https://www.cnet.com/news/vmware-and-the-gpl-round-two/ https://www.cnet.com/news/vmware-and-the-gpl-round-two/
- trasz 8y ago
  Being reasonable person is one thing, understanding licensing issues is something completely different. The whole thing boils down to one thing: whether something becomes a "derivative work" just due to being linked with code licensed under GPL. FSF says it does - and one could assume they know what they are talking about; after all it's their own license, right? Except that the GPL license doesn't really say that; it's just FSF's interpretation. While e.g. the Mozilla license states very clearly what is and what is not covered by the license, thus avoiding the problem, the GPL is unclear. There is, however, one very simple way to win any lawsuit that would claim that your binary blob violates the GPL: just make sure it's possible for you to demonstrate in court that your code can run with something else instead of the GPL thingie. If someone sued, say, NVidia, for putting their binary drivers into people's GNU kernels, they can point at the FreeBSD version of their driver: if it works without Linux, it clearly doesn't constitute a derived code; Linux is just one of the platforms it works with.