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

Linux

52745 readers
596 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
[–] brandon@lemmy.ml 112 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (20 children)

The unfortunate reality is that a significant proportion of software engineers (and other IT folks) are either laissez-faire "libertarians" who are ideologically opposed to the restrictions in the GPL, or "apolitical" tech-bros who are mostly just interested in their six figure paychecks and fancy toys.

To these folks, the MIT/BSD licenses have fewer restrictions, and are therefore more free, and are therefore more better.

[–] bunitor@lemmy.eco.br 42 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (8 children)

it's interesting how the move away from the gpl is never explicitly justified as a license issue: instead, people always have some plausible technical motivation. with clang/llvm it was the lower compile times and better error messages; with these coreutils it's "rust therefore safer". the license change was never even addressed

i believe they have to do this exactly bc permissive licenses appeal to libertarian/apolitical types who see themselves as purely rational and changing a piece of software bc of the license would sound too... ideological...

so the people in charge of these changes always have a plausible technical explanation at hand to mask away the political aspect of the change

[–] GnuLinuxDude@lemmy.ml 32 points 1 week ago (5 children)

The rust coreutils project choosing the MIT license is just another gambit to allow something like android or chromeos happen to gnu+linux, where all of the userland gets replaced by proprietary junk.

And yet that's a popularly welcomed approach, for some reason. Just look at the number of thumbs down this has. https://github.com/uutils/coreutils/issues/1781

[–] bunitor@lemmy.eco.br 9 points 1 week ago

yeah, unfortunately most people in the foss community are the apolitical/free thinker types who hate the fsf bc it is "too political/evangelist" and don't want to understand how user freedom is affected by permissive licenses

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (17 replies)