6 ms·
From the movie "Revolution OS" [1], Richard Stallman explaining Copyleft: "If we put the software in the public domain, somebody else would be able to make a l
by peterwwillis 8y ago
From the movie "Revolution OS" [1], Richard Stallman explaining Copyleft:
"If we put the software in the public domain, somebody else would be able to make a little bit of changes and turn that into a proprietary software package, which means that
the users would be running our software, but they wouldn't have freedom to cooperate and share."
"And what we do is, we say, this software is copyrighted and we, the authors give you permission to redistribute copies, we give you permission to change, we give you permission to add to it. But when you redistribute it, it has to be under these terms, no more and no less. So that whoever gets it from you also gets the freedom to cooperate with other people, if he wants to. And then, in this way everywhere the software goes, the freedom goes, too. And it becomes an inalienable right to cooperate with other people and form a community."
Bruce Perens, on the choice of the GPL for Debian:
"Uh, it's one of the few software licenses that was written from the standpoint of the community rather than from the standpoint of um, protecting a company or um, as is the case with MIT and BSD license, performing the goals of a government grant program. Uh, and the GPL is really unique in that. It's not just a license. It's a whole philosophy that, I think, motivated the open source definition."
MongoDB tried to protect its company's profits, and as a result, Amazon [and its users] now have a proprietary product rather than an open source one. Could have gotten free fixes from the biggest lab in the world, but instead they're getting jack squat. And since Amazon's product is proprietary, now users and the community have less freedom.
Linus is asked at the end if he's bothered that he's not cashing out on billions of dollars of use, and he basically doesn't care. He just wanted people to work on the software. If Linux had the same licensing scheme, it may have remained a hobby operating system.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eluzi70O-P4#t=17m https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eluzi70O-P4#t=17m
- arbie 8y ago> Could have gotten free fixes from the biggest lab in the world Wasn't this one of the main points of contention, though, in addition to not purchasing a commerical license? Amazon not upstreaming (m)any of the fixes?
- peterwwillis 8y agoI don't know, it's certainly possible. But at least there was the opportunity, as they have upstreamed fixes for other projects. And it's not like keeping the fixes private was hurting anyone (unless they're security fixes; I think modern licenses should require all security bugs at least be reported, in the absence of changesets)
- depr 8y ago>Linus is asked at the end if he's bothered that he's not cashing out on billions of dollars of use Linus has an annual salary of $10 million, https://www.therichest.com/celebnetworth/celebrity-business/tech-millionaire/linus-torvalds-net-worth/ https://www.therichest.com/celebnetworth/celebrity-business/...
- icelancer 8y agoThat is a hilariously low salary given the impact of Linux on the world today.
- typon 8y agoAfter a certain point, more money doesn't really help the cause
- nacs 8y ago10 million is nothing in the scope of the "billions of dollars of use" GP mentioned and is almost a rounding error compared to how much business depends on Linux these days.