3 ms·

No. People shared code because they wanted to. Open standards are great tools against emerging monopolies. So the losing side used that. IBM lost OS/2 vs NT war

by okanat 7mo ago

No. People shared code because they wanted to. Open standards are great tools against emerging monopolies. So the losing side used that. IBM lost OS/2 vs NT war. They propped up Linux. Intel wanted to have a second option to Microsoft in server space. AMD wants to gain some developers against Nvidia Cuda monopoly. That's the reason they contribute. Even Linux's own leadership decided against extra freedoms for users; they rejected GPLv3 to keep company contributions going. That's why LLVM gets the first implementations of certain optimizations and architectures, yet being permissive licensed. Quite a bit of the Linux userspace is already permissively licensed. Nobody has built a full-fledged open source alternative yet. Because it is hard to build an ecosystem, it is hard to test thousands of different pieces of hardware. None of that would happen without well-paid engineers contributing.

kuschku 7mo ago
Often times it's the points where free software has to integrate with proprietary hardware that becomes an issue. Yet that's exactly where the GPL shines. As this proprietary hardware still uses linux, these manufacturers–which would never provide their source code willingly–are forced to provide it, and as result, we can build open drivers for them. I usually prefer writing drivers and weird protocols from scratch, but often that's not possible, so I'll have to spend months discussing with some manufacturers' legal teams before I'm able to receive the sources. Without the GPL, sure, you'd still have free software operating systems, but basically no hardware to actually run them on.
- okanat 7mo ago
  > Often times it's the points where free software has to integrate with proprietary hardware that becomes an issue. Yet that's exactly where the GPL shines. As this proprietary hardware still uses linux, these manufacturers–which would never provide their source code willingly–are forced to provide it, and as result, we can build open drivers for them. How many open drivers released for Adreno GPUs are there from Qualcomm? Does Apple release GPL drivers? How did the FOSS driver project for Nvidia worked out, are there any useable and truly FOSS drivers for Nvidia GPUs as the market leader, were they convinced that they are forced to develop a fully open driver including the user space? > Without the GPL, sure, you'd still have free software operating systems, but basically no hardware to actually run them on. I disagree. If there is enough economic interest to support open ecosystem as a weapon, you'd get open drivers / software like Intel and AMDGPU or Valve's Steam Deck. This is not a benefit nor a result of GPL. The main correlation is the existence of a significant dominant company and smaller not as dominant but still large enough companies that can supply significant resources into an open standard. Linux and other open source projects are used as a means to challenge and overthrow the significant players who almost always keep as many things as secret to not lose their position. If there was no Linux, another OS, most likely a BSD would get the same investments from IBM et al. This has been a proven strategy that worked for many other industries before computers even existed.

by okanat 7mo ago

kuschku 7mo ago

Often times it's the points where free software has to integrate with proprietary hardware that becomes an issue. Yet that's exactly where the GPL shines. As this proprietary hardware still uses linux, these manufacturers–which would never provide their source code willingly–are forced to provide it, and as result, we can build open drivers for them. I usually prefer writing drivers and weird protocols from scratch, but often that's not possible, so I'll have to spend months discussing with some manufacturers' legal teams before I'm able to receive the sources. Without the GPL, sure, you'd still have free software operating systems, but basically no hardware to actually run them on.

okanat 7mo ago
> Often times it's the points where free software has to integrate with proprietary hardware that becomes an issue. Yet that's exactly where the GPL shines. As this proprietary hardware still uses linux, these manufacturers–which would never provide their source code willingly–are forced to provide it, and as result, we can build open drivers for them. How many open drivers released for Adreno GPUs are there from Qualcomm? Does Apple release GPL drivers? How did the FOSS driver project for Nvidia worked out, are there any useable and truly FOSS drivers for Nvidia GPUs as the market leader, were they convinced that they are forced to develop a fully open driver including the user space? > Without the GPL, sure, you'd still have free software operating systems, but basically no hardware to actually run them on. I disagree. If there is enough economic interest to support open ecosystem as a weapon, you'd get open drivers / software like Intel and AMDGPU or Valve's Steam Deck. This is not a benefit nor a result of GPL. The main correlation is the existence of a significant dominant company and smaller not as dominant but still large enough companies that can supply significant resources into an open standard. Linux and other open source projects are used as a means to challenge and overthrow the significant players who almost always keep as many things as secret to not lose their position. If there was no Linux, another OS, most likely a BSD would get the same investments from IBM et al. This has been a proven strategy that worked for many other industries before computers even existed.