5 ms·

Do you consider anyone with strong beliefs that run counter to your own fundamentalism/militancy? Last I heard, the Linux Kernel was under the GPL and needs to

• new_realist 7y ago
  I'm describing a retroactive change that has no technical justification, only political motivation. I have very liberal license preferences, but that move was beyond the pale: a big middle finger to a kernel module which is clearly not a derived work of the Linux kernel.
  • madez 7y ago
    Engineering, technology, and science are deeply political, where politics isn't restricted to governments, parties, or official state systems. Refusal to recognize that doesn't change it. The GPL is a licence that was created by people well-aware of the political significance, and it is the embodiment of certain political intentions in form of a licence. Projects that consciously use it can be expected to act upon those political intentions. Not understanding actions upon those political intentions is rather a sign of not understanding the situation.
• rodgerd 7y ago
  It's certainly peculiar that the person driving efforts to cripple ZFS (which is, let us note, under an opensource license, albeit a GPL-hostile one) seems to be putting tremendous effort into doing it while being completely disinterested in, for example, the entirely proporietary graphics drivers from free software hostile companies such as NVidia.