Linux

52460 readers

756 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
No misinformation
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml

nooter692@lemmy.ml

MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml

cypherpunks@lemmy.ml

cyclohexane@lemmy.ml

d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz

134

What's with the move to MIT over AGPL for utilities? (lemmy.dbzer0.com)

submitted 4 days ago by marauding_gibberish142@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/linux@lemmy.ml

133 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I would understand if Canonical want a new cow to milk, but why are developers even agreeing to this? Are they out of their minds?? Do they actually want companies to steal their code? Or is this some reverse-uno move I don't see yet? I cannot fathom any FOSS project not using the AGPL anymore. It's like they're painting their faces with "here, take my stuff and don't contribute anything back, that's totally fine"

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Is giving away your software in a way that doesn't use a copyleft license, not altruistic? Seems like a pretty narrow definition.

[–] marauding_gibberish142@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Altruism towards shareholders, not the open-source community

[–] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

And they are mutually exclusive, in your eyes?

[–] marauding_gibberish142@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

In this case, yes. If you were altruistic toward the community, shareholders could instruct devs to use it anyway so it works out for both groups. Doesn't work the other way around

[–] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

How does a corporation using it obstruct independent developers from using it under the same license? I don't see a compelling case for them being mutually exclusive

[–] marauding_gibberish142@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Because most corporations do not contribute their changes back if it's MIT/BSD licensed

[–] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Oh so you're saying the companies are not altruistic? I'd agree. I thought you were saying that the people making the FOSS were not being altruistic.

[–] marauding_gibberish142@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 days ago

The very act of writing FOSS code is altruistic. Indeed, I'm looking at the big corporations when I point and say "thief!".

Some companies do work that I like though. Mullvad is a prime example. Recently I've been looking at Nym and I like their ideas and work. I really liked that the big giants like Google and IBM collaborated for k8s. I believe Uber has done something wonderful for the FOSS community too but I don't remember what it is. The fact is that they can if they try