4 ms·
One of my biggest concerns about systemd is the ownership. Sure it is open sourced, however RedHat has a lot of pull on its maintainers (Soon to be IBM). What
by siffland 7y ago
One of my biggest concerns about systemd is the ownership. Sure it is open sourced, however RedHat has a lot of pull on its maintainers (Soon to be IBM). What is to stop them from dual licensing it or close sourcing it. They have lots of products like that (jboss/wildfly...spacewalk/satellite). After everything runs on systemd the ball in in their court. Sure people can say they are going to fork it, but in reality how often does that work out (I concede are some examples where it does, X11, nextcloud, etc.).
In my paranoid mind I can see Redhat commercializing it and adding features to it for only paying customers after they win through attrition the monopoly on the OS (after systemd incorporates everything, resolvers, cron, ntp, etc...). They are first and foremost a business with investors and a bottom line.
Again not an attack on system itself, just my untrusting and paranoid nature (to many years of security scans and cve’s and users, can’t trust users)…
- pas 7y agoThe moment it stops being free Debian drops/forks it. Furthermore, if Red Hat can monetize a system manager daemon, well ... I mean, good for them. Oracle tried with the JVM (they had some commercial features). Furthermore, if systemd provides a lot of basic facilities (global/user services, device management, login sessions, cron, ntp, DNS resolving) someone ought to maintain and support it, and if a for-profit company does it, I don't mind if they try to cover those expenses. (As long as it's also GPL2.)
- siffland 7y agoSystemd is not GPLv2, according to wikipedia it is LGPLv2.1+. Of course someone here at work told me i am splitting hairs and they are pretty much the same thing and compatible.