this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2025
109 points (92.9% liked)
Linux
52500 readers
957 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
the deGPLification of the Linux ecosystem ffs
I would love this news if it didn't move away from the GPL.
Mass move to MIT is just empowering enshittification by greedy companies.
What does the license change actually mean? What are the differences?
The best example I could point to would be BSD. Unlike Linux, the BSD kernel was BSD (essentially MIT) -licensed. This allowed Apple to take their code and build OSX and a multi-billion dollar company on top of it, giving sweet fuck all back the community they stole from.
That's the moral argument: it enables thievery.
The technical argument is one of practicality. MIT-licensed projects often lead to proprietary projects (see: Apple, Android, Chrome, etc) that use up all the oxygen in an ecosystem and allow one company to dominate where once we had the latitude to use better alternatives.
The GPL is the tool that got us here, and it makes these exploitative techbros furious that they can't just steal our shit for their personal profit. We gain nothing by helping them, but stand to lose a great deal.
Thanks for your explanation.
The code can be taken and used in close source projects
And how does this hurt all of us who use it for open source projects?
Competitive improvements the company makes make be kept secret, re packaged, and sold without making contributions to the src code.
Basically embrace, extend, extinguish
Ideas can only be patented, not copyrighted. If a company designs something novel enough to qualify for a patent, and so good that people willingly pay for the feature, that's impressive, and arguably still a good thing. If instead they design a better user experience, or an improvement in performance, the ideas can be used in open source, even when the code cannot be.
@prime_number_314159 @thedeadwalking4242 this is how Google killed RSS
Patents kill innovation. No one should be granted rights to a concept purely because they got to it first. It’s still really.
I didn’t even say anything about copyright or patent?
Imagine a contributor of the project. He would have been fixing the bug for free and give the work to the public project. Right before he submits the code change, he sees an ad from a big tech bro: "Hiring. Whoever can fix this bug gets this job and a sweet bonus." He hesitated and worked for the company instead.
Now that he is the employee of the company. He can't submit the same bug fix to the open source project because it is now company property. The company's product is bug free, and the open source counterpart remains buggy.
means it can also be captured by a corpo takeover and taken private
It can be forked by anyone, but what is already out there will always be there.
Until you're left with choosing between an abandoned open source version and an up to date closed source blob.
To give you an example, if git was under the MIT license instead of GPL , then Microsoft can silently add incompatible features to GitHub without anyone knowing. The regular git client appears to work for a while. Then they start advertising msgit with some extra GitHub features and shortcuts. Once they get to 50% adoption they simply kill the open source version off.
If GitHub required a special client to be installed tomorrow… I would have to concede and use it. It’s GPL that stops that because everyone has to get every new feature.
When Slack was first rolling out the dev team in my office of 50 people we all hated it. Thankfully it had an IRC bridge so we could use Slack through IRC. It was seemingly the same experience as before except more business users were in the chat rooms. Once the Corp side of the business were onboard, they dropped IRC support, forcing us to use their clients.
Now it doesn’t matter that rules or laws or privacy invasion they do. They have captured the companies communications and can hold it hostage.
I’ve seen it again and again. When is the last time you downloaded an MP3 file?
Genuinely what negative ramifications could come of uutils being MIT licensed? The kernel license isn't going to change and I really don't see how companies can abuse uutils for a profit.
Kinda like a full 180° back to UNIX™.
Okay, I'm not a fan of this either but let's not get too worried about this. Everyone's known Ubuntu is a joke for a long time and they don't really have much influence on even several of their downstreams, let alone the rest of the ecosystem.
I think Ubuntu has a lot of influence in industry