6 ms·

Love the MIT license. If this were further along we could use this as the foundation of our business without having to "give back" device drivers and other thin

by phkahler 11mo ago

Love the MIT license. If this were further along we could use this as the foundation of our business without having to "give back" device drivers and other things.

bfrog 11mo ago
This should be the sort of red flag to take note of. There’s an LLVM fork for every esoteric architecture now and this sort of thinking will lead to never being able to run your own software on your own hardware again. A reversion to the dark ages of computing.
- imiric 11mo ago
  Seriously. To the author: kudos for the interesting project, but please strongly consider a copyleft license moving forward.
  - cryptonector 11mo ago
    Seriously: stop it. It's none of your business what the author's license choice is. You don't know what the author is trying to accomplish by their choice of license. It could be a mindless choice, or it could be an informed choice. Perhaps the author wants to build interest and later plans to switch licenses (it's not like others are likely to fork _and_ do an excellent job of evolving and maintaining the fork). Perhaps the author is looking to get hired. Perhaps the author believes that BSD/MIT licensing is more free than the GPL. You really don't need to be shaming the author for not making the choice you made.
- 533474 11mo ago
  Great, an MIT license to accelerate planned obsolescence and hardware junk. Truly a brilliant move
  - surajrmal 11mo ago
    Linux magically solves this problem how? GPL isn't magic. It doesn't compel contributing upstream. And half of modern driver stacks live in userspace anyways.
    - mikelpr 11mo ago
      > And half of modern driver stacks live in userspace anyways ??? I haven't touched hardware whose driver lives in userspace since 2017 and it was a DMX512 controller of a shitty brand
      - surajrmal 11mo ago
        They seem to be primarily targeting arm. A lot of drivers live in userspace for arm socs, especially on the higher end.
    - Blikkentrekker 11mo ago
      There are also so many G.P.L. violations and nothing is done about it. I think a big issue is also that it's hard to show actual damages with this kind of copyright violation. It's obviously copyright violation but what damages are there really? Also, there are so many dubious cases where it's not clear whether it is a violation or not.
      - pabs3 11mo ago
        Software Freedom Conservancy have been doing GPL compliance actions for a long time, especially if you consider their staff's previous lawsuit that resulted in OpenWRT existing. Also the more recent Vizio lawsuit is kinda interesting, it aims to enable any recipient of GPLed binaries to sue for GPL compliance. https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/ https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/ https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html
- woodruffw 11mo ago
  > There’s an LLVM fork for every esoteric architecture now Can you provide examples of these? I'm aware of temporary forks for things like Xtensa, but these typically get merged back upstream.
  - RealityVoid 11mo ago
    Infineon tricore compiler from hightec. Compilers are actually, IMO, one of the things that are the most easy to have GPL because you can use it internally however you want without releasing the source outside. You could build whatever you want and you don't have to ship it on the final HW. A kernel does not afford you such a thing, you MUST ship it with your product.
    - woodruffw 11mo ago
      Thanks for the example! Your opinion here aligns with mine: GCC's GPL status has manifestly not been an issue for vendors in the past. I think the reason for vendors selecting LLVM has much more to do with the fact that LLVM is easier to develop on than GCC.
nickpsecurity 11mo ago
MIT licensed code is a gift. A gift indeed doesn't require the recipient to give back anything related to the gift. A "gift" requiring GPL-like conditions isn't really a gift in the common sense. It's more like a contractual agreement with something provided and specific, non-negotiable obligations. They're giving while also asserting control over others' lives, hoping for a specific outcome. That's not just a gift. People doing MIT license are often generous enough where the code is a gift to everyone. They don't try to control their lives or societal outcomes with extra obligations. They're just giving. So, I'm grateful to them for both OSS and business adaptations of their gifts.
- imiric 11mo ago
  A gift where the recipient can remove the freedoms that they've been enjoying themselves is a bad deal for ensuring those freedoms are available to everyone. A permissive license is a terrible idea for a F/LOSS kernel. This is the paradox of tolerance, essentially. Also, seeing F/LOSS as a "gift" is an awful way of looking at it.
  - nickpsecurity 11mo ago
    They can't remove it. They gave it to you. They just don't have to keep giving you more stuff. Many people think they're owed more software, including fixes to software, without compensating the laborer. That worldview is the real problem. So, we have a variety of licensing styles that meet various goals. People can pick what suits their needs and wants. That's a good thing.
    - imiric 11mo ago
      > They can't remove it. They gave it to you. They just don't have to keep giving you more stuff. Who is "they" in this context? A permissive license allows anyone to take someone else's work, profit from it, and never contribute back to the original project. For someone advocating for fairness, it's remarkable how you ignore this very real and common scenario. > Many people think they're owed more software, including fixes to software, without compensating the laborer. That worldview is the real problem. Compensation is orthogonal to F/LOSS. Authors are free to choose whatever income streams they like, and many successful businesses have been built around F/LOSS. Whoever is expecting people to work without compensation is being unreasonable, of course. But F/LOSS as a social movement goes beyond a mere financial transaction. It works on the basis of mutual trust, where if I share something you find valuable, then the acceptable "payment" for that work is for you to do the same. This collaborative effort is how the highest quality products are produced. The irony of your point is that a permissive license allows precisely the scenario you're arguing against. We've seen corporations profit from the work of others without compensating them for it. So much so, that OSS projects are forced to roll back their permissive licenses, often going too far in the other direction, to where they can no longer be labeled as "Open Source". E.g. Elastic: Apache -> SSPL -> AGPL; Redis: BSD -> SSPL; HashiCorp: MPL -> BSL; etc. That is the actual problem which copyleft licenses prevent.
surajrmal 11mo ago
Do you think soup kitchens and food banks should only serve food to those who volunteer? MIT is a perfectly fine FOSS license.
- imiric 11mo ago
  No, but if someone takes the free food and builds a business by selling it to others, without giving anything back to the original places, it harms everyone other than the person doing that. F/LOSS is not a charity or a gift, so your analogy is not appropriate. It is a social movement and philosophy with the goal of sharing knowledge and building software for the benefit of everyone. It invites collaboration, and fosters a community of like-minded people. Trust is an implicit requirement for this to succeed, and individuals and corporations who abuse it by taking the work of others and not giving anything back are harmful to these goals. Copyleft licenses exist precisely to prevent this from happening. MIT is a fine license for many projects, but not for an operating system kernel.
  - surajrmal 11mo ago
    This feels eerily close to having someone try to convince me to be join their religion. You don't need to force your opinions into others. Let them choose. If folks agree then the license will hold them back in terms of building a community. There are plenty of great open source kernels that don't use GPL, including freebsd. I think most embedded os kernels are not gpl (zephyr, freertos, etc). I would argue that Linux does well in spite of its license not because of it.
    - vacuity 11mo ago
      Just as people who strongly prefer permissive licenses deny copyleft licenses, this is the same in reverse. If you don't want to touch GPL projects, then don't.
      - surajrmal 11mo ago
        Im not trying to suggest non gpl licenses are superior and folks writing kernels with gpl are making a mistake. On the contrary I'm advocating that both are fine options and you shouldn't make people feel bad for choosing to not use gpl. There is a difference here and it matters greatly. Most people will not care for the differences between the two and the ones that do will choose the one that aligns with their values. If I'm even a hint of anti gpl, it's due to zealotry of it's supporters.
cryptonector 11mo ago
I take this as an oblique critique of TFA's choice of license. What's it to you? Why must we all use the GPL always in order to satisfy busybodies?
- phkahler 11mo ago
  >> I take this as an oblique critique of TFA's choice of license. What's it to you? Why must we all use the GPL always in order to satisfy busybodies? Thank you for reading it correctly. I originally had a </sarcasm> to make sure nobody thought I liked the license choice. What's it to me? Well someone posted it to HN here so we could comment on it, so I did. I think the MIT license has its place, but IMHO it does not belong on an OS like that. Reason is indicated in my original comment.
  - cryptonector 11mo ago
    Glad the author disagrees with you. So do I.
0x457 11mo ago
You just described android.

Love the MIT license. If this were further along we could use this as the foundation of our business without having to "give back" device drivers and other things.

bfrog 11mo ago

This should be the sort of red flag to take note of. There’s an LLVM fork for every esoteric architecture now and this sort of thinking will lead to never being able to run your own software on your own hardware again. A reversion to the dark ages of computing.

imiric 11mo ago
Seriously. To the author: kudos for the interesting project, but please strongly consider a copyleft license moving forward.
- cryptonector 11mo ago
  Seriously: stop it. It's none of your business what the author's license choice is. You don't know what the author is trying to accomplish by their choice of license. It could be a mindless choice, or it could be an informed choice. Perhaps the author wants to build interest and later plans to switch licenses (it's not like others are likely to fork _and_ do an excellent job of evolving and maintaining the fork). Perhaps the author is looking to get hired. Perhaps the author believes that BSD/MIT licensing is more free than the GPL. You really don't need to be shaming the author for not making the choice you made.
533474 11mo ago
Great, an MIT license to accelerate planned obsolescence and hardware junk. Truly a brilliant move
- surajrmal 11mo ago
  Linux magically solves this problem how? GPL isn't magic. It doesn't compel contributing upstream. And half of modern driver stacks live in userspace anyways.
  - mikelpr 11mo ago
    > And half of modern driver stacks live in userspace anyways ??? I haven't touched hardware whose driver lives in userspace since 2017 and it was a DMX512 controller of a shitty brand
    - surajrmal 11mo ago
      They seem to be primarily targeting arm. A lot of drivers live in userspace for arm socs, especially on the higher end.
  - Blikkentrekker 11mo ago
    There are also so many G.P.L. violations and nothing is done about it. I think a big issue is also that it's hard to show actual damages with this kind of copyright violation. It's obviously copyright violation but what damages are there really? Also, there are so many dubious cases where it's not clear whether it is a violation or not.
    - pabs3 11mo ago
      Software Freedom Conservancy have been doing GPL compliance actions for a long time, especially if you consider their staff's previous lawsuit that resulted in OpenWRT existing. Also the more recent Vizio lawsuit is kinda interesting, it aims to enable any recipient of GPLed binaries to sue for GPL compliance. https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/ https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/ https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html
woodruffw 11mo ago
> There’s an LLVM fork for every esoteric architecture now Can you provide examples of these? I'm aware of temporary forks for things like Xtensa, but these typically get merged back upstream.
- RealityVoid 11mo ago
  Infineon tricore compiler from hightec. Compilers are actually, IMO, one of the things that are the most easy to have GPL because you can use it internally however you want without releasing the source outside. You could build whatever you want and you don't have to ship it on the final HW. A kernel does not afford you such a thing, you MUST ship it with your product.
  - woodruffw 11mo ago
    Thanks for the example! Your opinion here aligns with mine: GCC's GPL status has manifestly not been an issue for vendors in the past. I think the reason for vendors selecting LLVM has much more to do with the fact that LLVM is easier to develop on than GCC.

nickpsecurity 11mo ago

MIT licensed code is a gift. A gift indeed doesn't require the recipient to give back anything related to the gift. A "gift" requiring GPL-like conditions isn't really a gift in the common sense. It's more like a contractual agreement with something provided and specific, non-negotiable obligations. They're giving while also asserting control over others' lives, hoping for a specific outcome. That's not just a gift. People doing MIT license are often generous enough where the code is a gift to everyone. They don't try to control their lives or societal outcomes with extra obligations. They're just giving. So, I'm grateful to them for both OSS and business adaptations of their gifts.

imiric 11mo ago
A gift where the recipient can remove the freedoms that they've been enjoying themselves is a bad deal for ensuring those freedoms are available to everyone. A permissive license is a terrible idea for a F/LOSS kernel. This is the paradox of tolerance, essentially. Also, seeing F/LOSS as a "gift" is an awful way of looking at it.
- nickpsecurity 11mo ago
  They can't remove it. They gave it to you. They just don't have to keep giving you more stuff. Many people think they're owed more software, including fixes to software, without compensating the laborer. That worldview is the real problem. So, we have a variety of licensing styles that meet various goals. People can pick what suits their needs and wants. That's a good thing.
  - imiric 11mo ago
    > They can't remove it. They gave it to you. They just don't have to keep giving you more stuff. Who is "they" in this context? A permissive license allows anyone to take someone else's work, profit from it, and never contribute back to the original project. For someone advocating for fairness, it's remarkable how you ignore this very real and common scenario. > Many people think they're owed more software, including fixes to software, without compensating the laborer. That worldview is the real problem. Compensation is orthogonal to F/LOSS. Authors are free to choose whatever income streams they like, and many successful businesses have been built around F/LOSS. Whoever is expecting people to work without compensation is being unreasonable, of course. But F/LOSS as a social movement goes beyond a mere financial transaction. It works on the basis of mutual trust, where if I share something you find valuable, then the acceptable "payment" for that work is for you to do the same. This collaborative effort is how the highest quality products are produced. The irony of your point is that a permissive license allows precisely the scenario you're arguing against. We've seen corporations profit from the work of others without compensating them for it. So much so, that OSS projects are forced to roll back their permissive licenses, often going too far in the other direction, to where they can no longer be labeled as "Open Source". E.g. Elastic: Apache -> SSPL -> AGPL; Redis: BSD -> SSPL; HashiCorp: MPL -> BSL; etc. That is the actual problem which copyleft licenses prevent.

surajrmal 11mo ago

Do you think soup kitchens and food banks should only serve food to those who volunteer? MIT is a perfectly fine FOSS license.

imiric 11mo ago
No, but if someone takes the free food and builds a business by selling it to others, without giving anything back to the original places, it harms everyone other than the person doing that. F/LOSS is not a charity or a gift, so your analogy is not appropriate. It is a social movement and philosophy with the goal of sharing knowledge and building software for the benefit of everyone. It invites collaboration, and fosters a community of like-minded people. Trust is an implicit requirement for this to succeed, and individuals and corporations who abuse it by taking the work of others and not giving anything back are harmful to these goals. Copyleft licenses exist precisely to prevent this from happening. MIT is a fine license for many projects, but not for an operating system kernel.
- surajrmal 11mo ago
  This feels eerily close to having someone try to convince me to be join their religion. You don't need to force your opinions into others. Let them choose. If folks agree then the license will hold them back in terms of building a community. There are plenty of great open source kernels that don't use GPL, including freebsd. I think most embedded os kernels are not gpl (zephyr, freertos, etc). I would argue that Linux does well in spite of its license not because of it.
  - vacuity 11mo ago
    Just as people who strongly prefer permissive licenses deny copyleft licenses, this is the same in reverse. If you don't want to touch GPL projects, then don't.
    - surajrmal 11mo ago
      Im not trying to suggest non gpl licenses are superior and folks writing kernels with gpl are making a mistake. On the contrary I'm advocating that both are fine options and you shouldn't make people feel bad for choosing to not use gpl. There is a difference here and it matters greatly. Most people will not care for the differences between the two and the ones that do will choose the one that aligns with their values. If I'm even a hint of anti gpl, it's due to zealotry of it's supporters.

cryptonector 11mo ago

I take this as an oblique critique of TFA's choice of license. What's it to you? Why must we all use the GPL always in order to satisfy busybodies?

phkahler 11mo ago
>> I take this as an oblique critique of TFA's choice of license. What's it to you? Why must we all use the GPL always in order to satisfy busybodies? Thank you for reading it correctly. I originally had a </sarcasm> to make sure nobody thought I liked the license choice. What's it to me? Well someone posted it to HN here so we could comment on it, so I did. I think the MIT license has its place, but IMHO it does not belong on an OS like that. Reason is indicated in my original comment.
- cryptonector 11mo ago
  Glad the author disagrees with you. So do I.

0x457 11mo ago

You just described android.