Linux

52353 readers

1009 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

123

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

116 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

[–] phlegmy@sh.itjust.works 4 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

If you're developing software for a platform that doesn't allow users to replace dynamic libraries (game consoles, iOS, many embedded/commercial systems), you won't be able to legally use any GPL or AGPL libraries.

While I strongly agree with the motives behind copyleft licenses, I personally never use them because I've had many occasions where I was unable to use any available library for a specific task because they all had incompatible licenses.

I release code for the sole purpose of allowing others to use it. I don't want to impose any restrictions on my fellow developers, because I understand the struggle it can bring.

Even for desktop programs, I prefer MIT or BSD because it allows others to take snippets of code without needing to re-license anything.

Yes I understand that means anyone can make a closed-source fork, but that doesn't bother me.
If I wanted to sell it I might care, but I would have used a different license for a commercial project anyway.

[–] marauding_gibberish142@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

Sorry, I'm not much of a software dev so bear with me:

If the libraries are GPL licensed, is there a problem? Unless you're editing the libraries themselves.

Now if the application is GPL licensed and you're adding functionality to use other libraries, please push upstream. It helps the community and the author will more likely than not be happy to receive it

[–] Laser@feddit.org 3 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (1 children)

Any linking against GPL software requires you to also release your source code under GPL. ~~A~~LGPL allows you to link to it dynamically without relicensing, but as explained, there are platforms where dynamic linking isn't an option, which means these libraries can't be used if one doesn't want to provide ~~A~~LGPL licensed source code of their own product.

[–] SeerLite@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

You mean LGPL when you say AGPL, right?

[–] Laser@feddit.org 1 points 19 hours ago

Yes, sorry

[–] phlegmy@sh.itjust.works 1 points 21 hours ago

Using a GPL library will require you to re-license your entire project as GPL, regardless of whether you made a change or not.

LGPL is a bit better, because it allows you to dynamically link the library. But you're required to provide a copy of source for the library, and any users must be able to swap the built library with their own copy.

Eg; you can use an AGPL-licensed .dll in your closed-source windows program, because users can swap that .dll easily.

You can't do the same for a ps5 game because users aren't able to replace any files that the game uses.

[–] zarenki@lemmy.ml 1 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

If the only problem is that you can't use dynamic linking (or otherwise make relinking possible), you still can legally use LGPL libraries. As long as you license the project using that library as GPL or LGPL as well.

However, those platforms tend to be a problem for GPL in other ways. GPL has long been known to conflict with Apple's App Store and similar services, for example, because the GPL forbids imposing extra limits that restrict user freedom and those stores have a terms of service that does exactly that.

[–] phlegmy@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 hours ago

I guess I forgot to mention that those platforms usually require you to sign NDA's that prevent you from releasing any code that references their SDK.
This makes it impossible to license your entire project as GPL/AGPL, as you would be breaking the NDA.