3 ms·
I don't see the problem in wanting to keep the guts of the OS forced-free by license. If any of the deepest components of the Linux stack were MIT or BSD licens
by zanny 14y ago
I don't see the problem in wanting to keep the guts of the OS forced-free by license. If any of the deepest components of the Linux stack were MIT or BSD licensed, it wouldn't take long for some business to fork it into a proprietary blob they push for market adoption and you lose the freedom deep in the OS.
- Sanddancer 14y agoWith something like init, I would have to disagree. The biggest problem with this decision is that they ended up with an inferior project that wasn't nearly as flexible as the open options. While there are certain areas where keeping things under a restrictive license like the GPL may be useful, the init system is one where I can't see of any way how a closed system would offer any sort of competitive advantage.