2 ms·

Look the problem is, you CAN make Linux as proprietary as you want if you DON'T redistribute it, like google, so google cannibalizes Linux too. It's just a dif

by nix23 6y ago

Look the problem is, you CAN make Linux as proprietary as you want if you DON'T redistribute it, like google, so google cannibalizes Linux too. It's just a different vision, if you want real freedom and want to work with a community go with BSD/MIT. >ended up the same way BSD systems have: a largely academic project routinely cannibalized by behemoth closed-source companies. That's BS, just look at how Netflix and Dell EMC work with FreeBSD. And for example Juniper, they learned a lesson not working with the community and fell far behind because of that. https://www.freebsd.org/releases/12.0R/relnotes.html https://www.freebsd.org/releases/12.0R/relnotes.html

toyg 6y ago
I am not going to argue beliefs, MIT/BSD and GPL are compatible. My point on cannibalization was in the historical context. Today the situation is different (thanks largely to what the GPL did in the past). And of course Linux is GPL2, not 3 - which would address some of the issues you raise. All of these licenses would have avoided the problems we see with ZFS' adoption of CDDL or other MPL1 derivatives.
- trasz 6y ago
  The historical context is that Linux had a proper community support at the time when everyone was looking for Unix on x86, to migrate off RISC workstations, and BSDs at the time were either a bunch of jerks, or had unclear status due to ATT vs UCB lawsuit. You could try to argue that licensing had played a role at this, but experience with other projects suggests otherwise.
  - toyg 6y ago
    You know what enabled that "proper community"? A license that provided a sort of moral compass, fostering collaboration and goodwill towards shared improvement, safe in the knowledge that efforts wouldn't be abused. Something that other licenses still fail to provide, to this day.
    - trasz 6y ago
      Except that communities work equally well with other licenses. GPL doesn’t enable anything; there’s just no correlation there.
      - toyg 6y ago
        > Except that communities work equally well with other licenses. Today. Not in the '90s cut-throat "pirates of SV" environment.
        trasz 6y ago
        Not true, as evidenced by Postgres, or Apache, or X11, to give just a few examples of GPL-free communities from the nineties.

by nix23 6y ago

toyg 6y ago

I am not going to argue beliefs, MIT/BSD and GPL are compatible. My point on cannibalization was in the historical context. Today the situation is different (thanks largely to what the GPL did in the past). And of course Linux is GPL2, not 3 - which would address some of the issues you raise. All of these licenses would have avoided the problems we see with ZFS' adoption of CDDL or other MPL1 derivatives.

trasz 6y ago
The historical context is that Linux had a proper community support at the time when everyone was looking for Unix on x86, to migrate off RISC workstations, and BSDs at the time were either a bunch of jerks, or had unclear status due to ATT vs UCB lawsuit. You could try to argue that licensing had played a role at this, but experience with other projects suggests otherwise.
- toyg 6y ago
  You know what enabled that "proper community"? A license that provided a sort of moral compass, fostering collaboration and goodwill towards shared improvement, safe in the knowledge that efforts wouldn't be abused. Something that other licenses still fail to provide, to this day.
  - trasz 6y ago
    Except that communities work equally well with other licenses. GPL doesn’t enable anything; there’s just no correlation there.
    - toyg 6y ago
      > Except that communities work equally well with other licenses. Today. Not in the '90s cut-throat "pirates of SV" environment.
      - trasz 6y ago
        Not true, as evidenced by Postgres, or Apache, or X11, to give just a few examples of GPL-free communities from the nineties.