Linux

52728 readers

502 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

AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml

nooter692@lemmy.ml

MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml

cypherpunks@lemmy.ml

cyclohexane@lemmy.ml

d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz

139

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

submitted 1 week 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"

(page 2) 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I assume this is in reference to the rust coreutils being MIT-licensed. How would using GPL benefit them?

[–] marauding_gibberish142@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Improvements would be upstreamed. Not with MIT

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] easily3667@lemmus.org 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Or on the flip side, they want usage to be pervasive so they win. I mean come on man it's like "move this file" and "make this directory".

these applications aren't rocket science and providing them under a license that people will use outside of the hardcore Linux space is just good marketing.

[–] LeFantome@programming.dev 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

Apple makes the source code to all their core utilities available? Nobody cares but they do.

Why do they?

They are BSD licensed (very similar to MIT). According to the crowd here, Apple would never Open Source their changes. Yet, in the real world, they do.

Every Linux distro uses CUPS for printing. Apple wrote that and gave it away as free software.

How do we explain that?

There are many companies that use BSD as a base. None of them have take the BSD utils “commercial”.

Why not?

Most of the forks have been other BSD distros. Or Chimera Linux.

How about OpenSSH?

It is MiT licensed. Shouldn’t somebody have embraced, extended, and extinguished it by now?

Why haven’t they?

[–] surpador@lemm.ee 4 points 1 week ago

"Commercial" is not the opposite of free/libre. In fact, GPL licensed software can be "taken commercial" with a guarantee that it will remain libre, whereas BSD-licensed software doesn't have those guarantees.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments