Linux

52485 readers

1089 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

138

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

[–] limer@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 4 days ago (3 children)

For our use case, this makes the most sense.

I’m not at all sure about the larger trend you noticed, but I know a non trivial number are doing it for the same reasons

[–] azolus@slrpnk.net 3 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Could you elaborate on those reasons, please? I'm not sure what you mean.

[–] limer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The mit license allows a mix of public and commercial code run by the same company, with minimal legal issues. One can use other tactics I am sure, but this one seems good when the commercial code absolutely needs the public code .

I think some confusion here can be resolved by stating this is anti foss, taking advantage of foss, it is capitalism taking advantage of having a good code base while making sure any contribution from outside the company is minimized. At the same time it gives my company absolute control over the private part.

Usually get into arguments here! I’m not defending it, but am saying open source would be less without.

[–] surpador@lemm.ee 5 points 4 days ago

I understand this may not be exactly how you meant your comment, but I think it's important to clarify that free/libre software can also be commercial software, and in fact must allow commercial use in order to fit the Free Software Definition. It is probably easier to make lots of money with non-freely licensed software but I think contrasting "public" code with "commercial" code muddies the terminological waters a bit.