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.
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
Linus' thread: (CW: bigotry and racism in the comments) https://social.kernel.org/notice/AWSXomDbvdxKgOxVAm (you need to scroll down, i can't seem to link to the comment in the screenshot)
Was just coming here to say that. The entire Ethos of Open Source is basically the people owning the digital means of production. So some people really not grasp that?
Actually, yes, the original FOSS movement had more right-libertarian roots than anything to the left, although nowadays some might see it as "common ground".
The politics of folks like RMS (personal issues aside) were far above average, but the Free Software Movement was very steeped in liberalism from its onset, and that explains many of of its present shortcomings. Its biggest failing was to believe that Free Software would ultimately win on its merits. In the early days this was understandable, when free software was often playing catch-up to replicate the functionality of established commercial offerings. When the GNU project was just a C compiler you could install on proprietary UNIX systems to dick around with.
Today though, Free Software is more often than not superior to commercially available offerings, with the exception of some niche industrial segments. But still, Free Software adoption by end users remains incredibly marginal. No matter how many merits Free Software stacks in its favor, the "Year of Linux on the Desktop" never comes. We are still drowning in proprietary iOS and Android phones. The overwhelming majority of PCs still ship with Windows. All of it deliberately engineered to become E-waste in a couple of years.
Folks, this won't change unless we take over the factories where these PCs and phones are manufactured.
Hmmm. Ad machine maybe. For profit has bigger advertisement budgets than donation based.
Ideology runs this way unfortunately
Sadly, there's an entire generation of libertarian anti-GPL "open source" developers that think the preservation of free software goes too far.
.. What? I may be dumb. I don't see how libertarianism is compatible with being anti FOSS.
The idea is that for code to truly be free, you should be able to make it proprietary. If you can't do that, then it isn't really free. That's how I understand the idea anyway
But that's not being anti, just accepting the possibility of it. Like i consider myself a libertarian and if you wanna make it close source, ok, I may dislike it but I won't regulate against it. But being anti would imply I would go out of my way to censor your ability to do close source.
It's a GPL license thing. If you make a derivative work of GPL code, you're NOT free to do what you want with it. This is where the 'anti come from.
Ah. Well I'm pro theft so just use it and close it if you want and pray for the best! Hide the evidence to not get sued.
This happens from time to time. The offending party either removes the GPL code or they GPL the work. That's life ;)
Why would they offend and then GPL
It costs money to rewrite entire libraries
You don't need to rewrite it though. Just keep it closed source and import / copy paste whatever you want into your repo.
It's may be possible to tell if there is GPL code included whether or not the source is reveal. A simple example is that some plain-text strings are visible in compiled binaries. In this way, poking around with a hexeditor may reveal strings which indicate part of the code is GPL.
Hmmm. Thankfully I only develop small services and haven't done any big monolith that people wanna audit. When I get to that point I'll prolly get sued and then try to figure out what to do while profusely apologizing and denying at the same time.
There are two parts to this. On one side, you have the "please follow the GPL if you're using GPL code" -- which is really just asking someone to honor a contract, more or less.
Then you have people like RMS, who believe that there should not be such a thing as proprietary software. They don't care if you aren't using the GPL -- no software should be proprietary, period.
I admire that RMS has a vision for the world and fights for it. World needs more people like this.
Yeah, RMS provides the tension in a system that needs a balance between fully open and fully proprietary. HIs vision of the world is honestly pretty untenable, but the work he does pulls in a direction the world needs pulled.