Linux

52309 readers

1055 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

nooter692@lemmy.ml

AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml

MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml

cypherpunks@lemmy.ml

cyclohexane@lemmy.ml

d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz

108

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

submitted 1 day ago by marauding_gibberish142@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/linux@lemmy.ml

108 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

[–] marauding_gibberish142@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

At work, yes

[–] brandon@lemmy.ml 7 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Well, my experiences with my coworkers would lead me to pretty much exactly the opposite conclusion: the majority would probably intentionally avoid the GPL, if they even care at all.

[–] marauding_gibberish142@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Why do they not care? And why would they avoid GPL?

[–] brandon@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Why do they not care?

Because, for many of them, they don't have any reason to. In other words, privilege. Copyleft licensing is a subversive, anti-establishment thing, and software engineers are predominantly people who benefit from the established power structures. Middle/upper class white men (I'm included in that category, by the way). There's basically no pressure for them to rock the boat.

And why would they avoid GPL

Because many of them are "libertarian" ideologues who have a myopic focus on negative liberty (as opposed to the positive variety).

[–] marauding_gibberish142@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Look, I understand if your boss tells you to not write Open-source/only use MIT so they can profit off of it later on. But for the people who have a choice, why wouldn't they? I don't see how it hurts their bottom line.

I'm middle class and here I am raging on Lemmy about software licenses LMAO

[–] brandon@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah, but you and I aren't really representative of all software people. Most of them just want to grill.

[–] marauding_gibberish142@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 5 hours ago

I understand. I can't argue against wanting to earn money and be told to do something. I just wish that those that have a choice would take the extra minute to use GPL