Thank you from the bottom of our GNU little heart! #ThankGNU to Neil Banerjee, Ramana Kumar, Richard Ellwood, Stéphane Bortzmeyer, and Zacchae for their generous contribution to the #fsf Let's fight for freedom together! https://u.fsf.org/3vy
Basically the article aims to help some of you decide on your own when and which kernel is the last “safe” kernel to use. In the bottom of this article is relevant release dates of lts…
Linux was proprietary software in 1991, relicensed to the GPLv2-ambigious in 1992 and made proprietary software again in 1996 via the addition of the first proprietary program.
Linux was only fully source-available 1992-1995, before the concept of "open source" existed (1998), thus putting "FOSS" or "open source" anywhere near Linux is an error; https://opensource.org/osd (unless of course you regard "FOSS" to mean, gratis, partially source-available software).
Such restrictions are really expected from a group that composes of many proprietary software developers that either don't care about freedom, or actively work against it.
This is very dense and informative. Linux now is full of corporate firmware blobs for which there has been absolute refusal to share code, let alone provide it as free.
Banning devs based on national origin of their employers competing in interests with those paying linux-developer salaries should be expected then?
How do you feel about rust (quick sand source) playing an increasing role in the kernel? Internalizing the use of Facebook compr.algor. in the kernel?
>there has been absolute refusal to share code, let alone provide it as free. In many cases that peripheral software is clearly a derivative work of GPLv2-only works, which means the corporate is legally required to provide the source code and installation information, alas most Linux developers don't enforce their license in benefit of freedom (seemingly many only enforce it against freedom).
>Banning devs based on national origin of their employers Banning developers that have good intentions for completely arbitrary reasons is expected from those who selectively enforce the GPLv2-only against freedom (if you infringe it and release proprietary software, all good, but if you release free software, under the free GPLv3-or-later license they really crack down on stopping the freedom instead of assisting with relicesing to GPLv2-or-later).
>How do you feel about rust Rust will rust Linux, just like how oxygen oxidizes iron, but for now you can just scrape the proprietary rust off (of course one of the first things rust developers did was add a proprietary software loader).
>Internalizing the use of Facebook compr.algor. in the kernel? Adding another compression algorithm isn't a problem provided the implementation is licensed GPLv2-or-later and is not impacted by patents, even if it came from facebook.
I can listen to you all day, let's see if there are others.
zstd: Allegedly it was purchased by "f" from a "NATO security expert who then retired in a foreign land near a Bay" ... It was quickly adopted by the common popular IBM-init vendors and within a couple of years it is everywhere.
License proliferation was always a problem, but it's less bad now that people are selecting from a few hundred free licenses instead of writing a new license for each project, too bad many are in the habit of taking one of the licenses and making their own special edit.
There are only 3 GPL versions - GPLv1, GPLv2, GPLv3, with another 4 LGPL versions and another 3 AGPL versions and that's it.
When it comes to BSD licenses, there are at least 15 variations with usually minor differences.
MIT released many different licenses, but of course they can't just call it the expat license...
yianiris •
Is it still considered free software after this?
#linux #foss #gnu
@fsf
https://sysdfree.wordpress.com/389
The end of linux-kernel as free software we trust – war on FOSS revisited
systemd-free linux community翠星石 •
Linux was only fully source-available 1992-1995, before the concept of "open source" existed (1998), thus putting "FOSS" or "open source" anywhere near Linux is an error; https://opensource.org/osd (unless of course you regard "FOSS" to mean, gratis, partially source-available software).
Such restrictions are really expected from a group that composes of many proprietary software developers that either don't care about freedom, or actively work against it.
yianiris hat dies geteilt
yianiris •
Banning devs based on national origin of their employers competing in interests with those paying linux-developer salaries should be expected then?
How do you feel about rust (quick sand source) playing an increasing role in the kernel? Internalizing the use of Facebook compr.algor. in the kernel?
@Suiseiseki @fsf
翠星石 •
In many cases that peripheral software is clearly a derivative work of GPLv2-only works, which means the corporate is legally required to provide the source code and installation information, alas most Linux developers don't enforce their license in benefit of freedom (seemingly many only enforce it against freedom).
>Banning devs based on national origin of their employers
Banning developers that have good intentions for completely arbitrary reasons is expected from those who selectively enforce the GPLv2-only against freedom (if you infringe it and release proprietary software, all good, but if you release free software, under the free GPLv3-or-later license they really crack down on stopping the freedom instead of assisting with relicesing to GPLv2-or-later).
>How do you feel about rust
Rust will rust Linux, just like how oxygen oxidizes iron, but for now you can just scrape the proprietary rust off (of course one of the first things rust developers did was add a proprietary software loader).
>Internalizing the use of Facebook compr.algor. in the kernel?
Adding another compression algorithm isn't a problem provided the implementation is licensed GPLv2-or-later and is not impacted by patents, even if it came from facebook.
yianiris hat dies geteilt
yianiris •
zstd:
Allegedly it was purchased by "f" from a "NATO security expert who then retired in a foreign land near a Bay" ... It was quickly adopted by the common popular IBM-init vendors and within a couple of years it is everywhere.
@Suiseiseki
yianiris •
GPL BSD MIT ISC now we have hundreds of forks of variably free licenses, python its own, ....
@Suiseiseki @fsf
#unix #linux #FSF #GNU #BSD
翠星石 •
There are only 3 GPL versions - GPLv1, GPLv2, GPLv3, with another 4 LGPL versions and another 3 AGPL versions and that's it.
When it comes to BSD licenses, there are at least 15 variations with usually minor differences.
MIT released many different licenses, but of course they can't just call it the expat license...
yianiris hat dies geteilt