2 ms·

"Corporate Open Source" is many things. Look at how many companies are paying for membership on the Linux Foundation Board: Platinum costs $500k a year, gold is

"Corporate Open Source" is many things. Look at how many companies are paying for membership on the Linux Foundation Board: Platinum costs $500k a year, gold is $100k a year, and silver is $5-20k based on size: https://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/members https://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/members

1oooqooq 2y ago
Linux foundation was never about Linux or open source. quite the contrary. the foundation started as a way for companies to band Against gpl. and they won the day Linus have up and allowed tainted kernel be the default and every device distributor moved their proprietary code to modules and rejoiced. their focus then was on gpl3 fud because google et al have much more money than modem vendors.
- ahartmetz 2y ago
  Unfortunately true. I like to call the Linux foundation the megacorporations LUG (Linux user group). They want to use Linux alright, but they would prefer to do with it whatever they want, so they are not really friends of the GPL and a few other things.
- calibas 2y ago
  The resistance to GPL isn't just companies, I think you'll find the average programmer prefers using libraries licensed under MIT when given the choice. It seems like there's a kind of political ideology over what "open source" even means and how it should be practiced.There's a school of thought that says we should switch everything over to viral copyleft licenses. This will "protect" the code and ensure all derivative work is always open source. Then there's others, like myself, who believe if you want something that's truly "free and open" it should come with as few conditions as possible.
  - DaiPlusPlus 2y ago
    What about LGPL? It used to be everywhere when people were using SourceForge - but post-GitHub it seems to have dropped-off in popularity. When libs are distributed as binaries (.NET, Java, etc) it feels LGPL vs MIT/Apache is moot as hardly anyone actually modifies libraries, it seems. I wonder how different it is for Go and C/C++…
- gn4d 2y ago
  Bingo.
  - gn4d 2y ago
    Salty losers can downvote all day with no response :^)

1oooqooq 2y ago

Linux foundation was never about Linux or open source. quite the contrary. the foundation started as a way for companies to band Against gpl. and they won the day Linus have up and allowed tainted kernel be the default and every device distributor moved their proprietary code to modules and rejoiced. their focus then was on gpl3 fud because google et al have much more money than modem vendors.

ahartmetz 2y ago
Unfortunately true. I like to call the Linux foundation the megacorporations LUG (Linux user group). They want to use Linux alright, but they would prefer to do with it whatever they want, so they are not really friends of the GPL and a few other things.
calibas 2y ago
The resistance to GPL isn't just companies, I think you'll find the average programmer prefers using libraries licensed under MIT when given the choice. It seems like there's a kind of political ideology over what "open source" even means and how it should be practiced.There's a school of thought that says we should switch everything over to viral copyleft licenses. This will "protect" the code and ensure all derivative work is always open source. Then there's others, like myself, who believe if you want something that's truly "free and open" it should come with as few conditions as possible.
- DaiPlusPlus 2y ago
  What about LGPL? It used to be everywhere when people were using SourceForge - but post-GitHub it seems to have dropped-off in popularity. When libs are distributed as binaries (.NET, Java, etc) it feels LGPL vs MIT/Apache is moot as hardly anyone actually modifies libraries, it seems. I wonder how different it is for Go and C/C++…
gn4d 2y ago
Bingo.
- gn4d 2y ago
  Salty losers can downvote all day with no response :^)