this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2025
103 points (94.8% liked)

Linux

52309 readers
1376 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

Related Communities

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

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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
[–] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (21 children)

Maybe there could be another reason why people choose MIT to begin with:

When you start a new repo on github it makes suggestions which license to use, and I bet many people can't be arsed to think about it and just accept what they're offered. [My memory is a little patchy since I very rarely use github anymore, but I definitely remember something like this.] And maybe github tends to suggest MIT.

That said, please undestand that many, many git platforms exist and there is no reason at all to choose one of the two that actually have the word git in them.

[–] marauding_gibberish142@lemmy.dbzer0.com -5 points 1 day ago (20 children)

I can't believe professional developers choose MIT because they can't be arsed to look at the license choices

[–] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (10 children)

Ah, OK. No, of course not. I was thinking more about hobby developers.

But somebody else already pointed it out: MIT makes a project more attractive for investors. Follow the $£€

[–] marauding_gibberish142@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (2 children)

If it is solely for investors, then I understand. However I'm saddened to think that altruism in software has gone to the gutter

[–] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 5 points 11 hours 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 6 hours ago (1 children)

Altruism towards shareholders, not the open-source community

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

And they are mutually exclusive, in your eyes?

[–] marauding_gibberish142@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 5 hours 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 4 hours 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 4 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours 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.

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

[–] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 1 points 13 hours ago

I’m saddened to think that altruism in software has gone to the gutter

Yeah me too but it's been a long time coming. Ubuntu started it decades ago by replacing the altruism* with a warm and fuzzy "sense of community" while exploiting the enthusiasm of largely unpaid coders, Google certainly has done this for a long while, and by now it's just how you do your basic FOSS Kickstarter campaign.

All that really brings is "more customers", and doG knows that's not what the whole of GNU/Linux needs.

Over the years I have developed a sense for how projects present themselves before choosing one that suits my needs. Because the sane ones, both feet on the ground types, that do GPL and accept donations (or sometimes offer paid support), those still exist, old and new.

* a form of altruism btw that does not exclude egoism!

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)