3 ms·

You are completely right. But the answer to this is always the same: off-topic Stallman ad hominem > Linux is a peculiar beast here. The kernel is largely deve

You are completely right. But the answer to this is always the same: off-topic Stallman ad hominem > Linux is a peculiar beast here. The kernel is largely developed by big corps, but playing by the copyleft rules, because it's such a fundamental infrastructure. Not quite. linux is the success of the past! but already corrupted by "tainted" kernel... linux adopted GPL, which was *unthinkable* by corporate back then. But because devs didn't cave in to "permissive license fallacy", they had to eat it up. The thing is, GPL is severely outdated. It does nothing to force Google, Amazon to open source their code that they profit from because of an OSS base work. GPL, with tainted kernel, merely force them to open source irrelevant parts of Android. The drivers and spyware-DRM can all remain proprietary. And does *absolutely nothing* to their bread and butter, which is hosted services on top of OSS software. until we stick to GPLv3 like linux stuck with GPL, opensource is point less.

stereolambda 6y ago
>Not quite. linux is the success of the past! but already corrupted by "tainted" kernel... > linux adopted GPL, which was unthinkable by corporate back then. But because devs didn't cave in to "permissive license fallacy", they had to eat it up. True, I didn't expand on that to be more concise. Linux is a grandfathered treasure. Though there's an argument the corporations could use BSD like Apple, it's just more beneficial for the fragmented PC/Android ecosystem to maintain Linux sort of like an open ISO standard. Either way, this is not an easy story to replicate, unless something is essential on the level of Linux. I think with the way the situation develops, more and more people will be questioning permissive licenses as the no-brainer standard. I'm not saying there's no place for them, if you have a good business reason or something. Buy you don't have to unconditionally donate your labor to entities with nation-state-GDP-sized coffers. Copyleft alone won't solve the problems of the industry, but an expansion of its mindshare it would be a start.
jabl 6y ago
> linux adopted GPL, which was unthinkable by corporate back then. But because devs didn't cave in to "permissive license fallacy", they had to eat it up. Linux using GPL wasn't such a big problem for the corps, as the Linux developers stated the syscall interface is the GPL boundary. So you can make user space code that runs on Linux without being affected by the GPL (see e.g. the Android "no GPL in userspace" rule). And even inside the kernel, there are loopholes to get around the GPL (e.g. the "tainted" thing you mentioned). Even if Linux were permissively licensed, the thing preventing splitting up into a zillion proprietary forks would, I think, be the ferocious development speed and lack of internal API guarantees. > until we stick to GPLv3 like linux stuck with GPL, opensource is point less. I don't see what GPLv3 would solve here. To close the "service provider loophole" you need the AGPLv3, or even something stronger. But given the more or less total lack of adoption of AGPL, I'm not hopeful here. I mean, it would be nice if copyleft would be the norm, but that goal seems to be slipping further and further away all the time. To the point that corps can start to shun copyleft code, pressurizing the remaining holdouts to switch to permissive licensed or become irrelevant.
- gcblkjaidfj 6y ago
  > Linux using GPL wasn't such a big problem for the corps, as the Linux developers stated the syscall interface is the GPL boundary. That is fine for creating applications. It still required drivers and other things that expose syscalls to be open and GPLed. > Even if Linux were permissively licensed, The tainted kernel was the attack on the GPL itself i talked about. After tainted kernel, it is pretty much NOT-GPL, hence the devs gave in to a more permissive license while still calling it GPL. So the rest of the point is moot. Linux kernel DID adopt a permissive license, which is the reason we do not have proper open source android today. > But given the more or less total lack of adoption chicken and egg problem. But that is *exactly* the argument against GPL for the kernel in the past.
  - stereolambda 6y ago
    > But that is exactly* the argument against GPL for the kernel in the past.* Since you bring that up, could you give some good link for reading about it?
    - gcblkjaidfj 6y ago
      I tried to google for you planning to hit the very first result and mock you. I will admit my shame. To my surprise, despite this controversy being bigger than the systemd one recently, it mostly happened on mailing lists and other non-public forums! I wonder if anyone collected all that history. most of the public materials of the time are diatribes by non-coders: https://books.google.com/books?id=GlAEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA90&dq=gpl+o%27reilly&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwix56LlkMDuAhXBJzQIHY4TAGMQ6AEwAnoECAAQAg#v=onepage&q=gpl%20o'reilly&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=GlAEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA90&dq=gp...

stereolambda 6y ago

>Not quite. linux is the success of the past! but already corrupted by "tainted" kernel... > linux adopted GPL, which was unthinkable by corporate back then. But because devs didn't cave in to "permissive license fallacy", they had to eat it up. True, I didn't expand on that to be more concise. Linux is a grandfathered treasure. Though there's an argument the corporations could use BSD like Apple, it's just more beneficial for the fragmented PC/Android ecosystem to maintain Linux sort of like an open ISO standard. Either way, this is not an easy story to replicate, unless something is essential on the level of Linux. I think with the way the situation develops, more and more people will be questioning permissive licenses as the no-brainer standard. I'm not saying there's no place for them, if you have a good business reason or something. Buy you don't have to unconditionally donate your labor to entities with nation-state-GDP-sized coffers. Copyleft alone won't solve the problems of the industry, but an expansion of its mindshare it would be a start.

jabl 6y ago

> linux adopted GPL, which was unthinkable by corporate back then. But because devs didn't cave in to "permissive license fallacy", they had to eat it up. Linux using GPL wasn't such a big problem for the corps, as the Linux developers stated the syscall interface is the GPL boundary. So you can make user space code that runs on Linux without being affected by the GPL (see e.g. the Android "no GPL in userspace" rule). And even inside the kernel, there are loopholes to get around the GPL (e.g. the "tainted" thing you mentioned). Even if Linux were permissively licensed, the thing preventing splitting up into a zillion proprietary forks would, I think, be the ferocious development speed and lack of internal API guarantees. > until we stick to GPLv3 like linux stuck with GPL, opensource is point less. I don't see what GPLv3 would solve here. To close the "service provider loophole" you need the AGPLv3, or even something stronger. But given the more or less total lack of adoption of AGPL, I'm not hopeful here. I mean, it would be nice if copyleft would be the norm, but that goal seems to be slipping further and further away all the time. To the point that corps can start to shun copyleft code, pressurizing the remaining holdouts to switch to permissive licensed or become irrelevant.

gcblkjaidfj 6y ago
> Linux using GPL wasn't such a big problem for the corps, as the Linux developers stated the syscall interface is the GPL boundary. That is fine for creating applications. It still required drivers and other things that expose syscalls to be open and GPLed. > Even if Linux were permissively licensed, The tainted kernel was the attack on the GPL itself i talked about. After tainted kernel, it is pretty much NOT-GPL, hence the devs gave in to a more permissive license while still calling it GPL. So the rest of the point is moot. Linux kernel DID adopt a permissive license, which is the reason we do not have proper open source android today. > But given the more or less total lack of adoption chicken and egg problem. But that is *exactly* the argument against GPL for the kernel in the past.
- stereolambda 6y ago
  > But that is exactly* the argument against GPL for the kernel in the past.* Since you bring that up, could you give some good link for reading about it?
  - gcblkjaidfj 6y ago
    I tried to google for you planning to hit the very first result and mock you. I will admit my shame. To my surprise, despite this controversy being bigger than the systemd one recently, it mostly happened on mailing lists and other non-public forums! I wonder if anyone collected all that history. most of the public materials of the time are diatribes by non-coders: https://books.google.com/books?id=GlAEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA90&dq=gpl+o%27reilly&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwix56LlkMDuAhXBJzQIHY4TAGMQ6AEwAnoECAAQAg#v=onepage&q=gpl%20o'reilly&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=GlAEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA90&dq=gp...