Thread 107162849

What happens as more and more important linux components are "rewritten" (RELICENSED) into an MIT license?

I fear for the future of the project. These companies have trillions of dollars, they can and will fork and kill the project as soon as they can.

uutils is just one of the first steps, over time more and more components will be turned to MIT until it's done.

What can we do to stop this?

With cuck licenses, you lose.
>But sitting there, quietly powering masses of the internet, without saying boo to a goose, is FreeBSD. And the companies using it? They’re not talking about it. Why? Because they don’t have to. The simple fact that dawned on me is FreeBSD’s gift to us all, yet Achilles heel to itself, is its license.
>Unlike the GPL, which requires you to share derivative works, the BSD license doesn’t. You can take FreeBSD code, build on it, and never give anything back. This makes it a great foundation for products — but it also means there’s little reason for companies to return their contributions.
https://freebsdfoundation.org/blog/the-report-of-my-death-was-an-exaggeration/

>>107162849 (OP)
>What happens as more and more important linux components are "rewritten" (RELICENSED) into an MIT license?
Hopefully a more uniform ecosystem of operating systems, due to BSDs and proprietary OSes being able to use the same components as Linux.
>I fear for the future of the project. These companies have trillions of dollars, they can and will fork and kill the project as soon as they can.
Which project? How would forking kill it when anyone can fork it and continue it?

>>107162898
BSD license however benefits all companies from some dude's business ran out of his garage to tech giants equally.
It evens the playing field in a way that GPL doesn't since big companies can produce any code on demand, they just choose the cheapest option.
While GPL lives in a post-scarcity fairy tale world where capitalism doesn't exist, BSD license tries to make capitalism more ethical and fair by giving people tools to make their vision come true and turn it into a living.

>>107162975
GPL works just fucking fine. BSD just produces private forks that stifle innovation. Who gives a fuck if a company has more freedom to steal work and not give back to the projec?

>uutils is just one of the first steps, over time more and more components will be turned to MIT until it's done.
GNU coreutils is GPLv3, so it cannot be a "component" of Linux, which is GPLv2. Whatever boogeyman FUD scenario you're making up here isn't even applicable in the first place.

>>107162849 (OP)
>License
Why bother?

>>107163013
>Who gives a fuck
Like he literally said, it's nice to have the option to use open source code and licence it however you please, instead of having no choice but to give it away.

>>107162849 (OP)
It's not the end, the gnu stuff still exists and we can resume, this MIT/BSD meme is all nice till someone makes a lot of money of these projects without these projects getting a red cent and switches to the GPL, this has happened before.

>>107163013
If you genuinely just hate all forms of capitalism and it makes you angry as hell that some guy who is not a billionaire oligarch is making enough money to get by with software he and his few employees made with permissive open source code, then that's your opinion and I'm not gonna tell you not to be Maoist.
You're entitled to your hardline Communist views.
However it still doesn't change it that GPL has effectively zero power against tech giants. It might even be beneficial for them since it makes the entry barrier into software industry higher.

>>107163022
>GPLv2 or any later version
GPLv2 is compatible with GPLv3.

>>107163083
sqlite is an exception, not the norm
a beautiful exception, though

>>107163259
>GPLv2 or any later version
The Linux kernel is under strict GPLv2-only licence.
>GPLv2 is compatible with GPLv3.
You cannot combine GPLv2 code with GPLv3 code, if the former does not have the "or later" clause.

>>107163385
>The Linux kernel is under strict GPLv2-only licence.
Shit you're right. My bad lmao.

>>107162849 (OP)
I like freedom, so I like MIT. Permissive is winning, and that's a good thing.
I accept GPLv2, but schizos relicensed everything under GPLv3, which is not a free license. Companies are right to look for better alternatives. This is how Apple embraced ZSH, which is actually better than Bash.

>>107163480
It was a pretty big point of contention between Linus and the FSF. Even so, as previously mentioned, that doesn't stop GPLv3 licenced GNU coreutils being used on it, because they're userspace programs, not kernel components.

>>107163141
>However it still doesn't change it that GPL has effectively zero power against tech giants
Deboonked
https://wiki.fsfe.org/Migrated/GPL%20Enforcement%20Cases
Also, OpenWRT only exists thanks to a successful GPL enforcement.
>Cisco has agreed to appoint a Free Software Director for Linksys, a subsidiary of Cisco, to supervise Linksys' compliance with the requirements of free software licenses such as the GPL (the GNU General Public License).
>In addition, Cisco will continue to make the complete and corresponding source code for versions of FSF programs used with current Linksys products freely available on its website. Cisco will also make a monetary contribution to the FSF.
https://www.fsf.org/news/2009-05-cisco-settlement.html
>The OpenWrt project started in January 2004. The first OpenWrt versions were based on Linksys GPL sources for WRT54G and a buildroot from the uClibc project. This version was known as OpenWrt stable release and was widely in use.
https://openwrt.org/about/history
Whereas with cuck licenses, you have shit like MINIX -> Intel Management Engine (Spyware).
>Some people have pointed out online that if MINIX had a GPL license, Intel might not have used it since then it would have had to publish the modifications to the code. Maybe yes, maybe no, but the modifications were no doubt technical issues involving which mode processes run in, etc. My understanding, however, is that the small size and modular microkernel structure were the primary attractions. Many people (including me) don't like the idea of an all-powerful management engine in there at all (since it is a possible security hole and a dangerous idea in the first place), but that is Intel's business decision and a separate issue from the code it runs.
https://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/intel/
So:
GPL = More Freedom
Cuck licenses = More Slavery
Shrimple as.

>>107163577
Cool, but tech giants have unlimited resources now and can rewrite anything they need.
You still can't explain how GPL benefits small software businesses more than BSD license.
It always goes back to
>unlimited donations...LE GOOD
>people making money? LE BAD

>>107163667
>Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU Project is that you should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you should charge as little as possible—just enough to cover the cost. This is a misunderstanding.
>Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can. If a license does not permit users to make copies and sell them, it is a nonfree license. If this seems surprising to you, please read on.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

>>107163791
Reality works in a certain way and it's more or less the total opposite of how GNU wants the world to work.
GPL is great if you put idealism first and reality last, BSD and other such licenses are great if you're living in the real world and want to make capitalism more fair as a game.

>>107162898
And yet all the same these companies (particularly Netflix these days), dump a shitload of money into developing that base. The MIT license more or less manifests corpo support without any hijacking, like what's happened with Linux.

>make capitalism more fair as a game.
lol
lmao even

Working in corporate myself I can tell you that we absolutely prefer MIT and BSD licenses because we can take and not give back

>>107163791
They permit it in the same sense as dodge permits you to use their cars to fly to venus.

>>107163948
Yeah, Netflix loves FreeBSD <3
>Can you watch Netflix on FreeBSD?
>Impossible with native FreeBSD code, because the required DRM plugin is closed source and not provided for FreeBSD (so, nothing FreeBSD could ever do about it either).
https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/can-you-watch-netflix-on-freebsd.88805/post-607080

>>107164101
Point being that the tens of millions they've dumped into it isn't support because you can't watch the slop they serve without porting some DRM bullshit from Linux?
Is this the most substantial thing you can bring to bear?

>>107164101
>FreeBSD is now a Linux emulator
It's over

python,2095,PSF-2.0
ghc-libs,1231,custom
zlib,676,Zlib
openssl,505,Apache-2.0
libx11,482,MIT AND X11
ruby,433,BSD-2-Clause
libxml2,298,MIT
libglvnd,286,custom:BSD-like
curl,263,MIT
libpng,252,custom
libjpeg-turbo,229,BSD-3-Clause|IJG
ncurses,210,MIT-open-group
sqlite,207,LicenseRef-Sqlite
wayland,174,MIT
fontconfig,172,HPND AND Unicode-DFS-2016
libxcb,165,X11
bzip2,138,BSD
icu,121,LicenseRef-Unicode-3.0|BSD-2-Clause|BSD-3-Clause|NAIST-2003
firefox,108,MPL-2.0
expat,105,MIT
sdl2-compat,98,Zlib
libdrm,96,MIT
pcre2,96,BSD-2-Clause|BSD-3-Clause WITH PCRE2-exception
boost-libs,91,BSL-1.0
lcms2,90,MIT
vim,83,custom:vim
libtiff,82,libtiff
harfbuzz,82,MIT
jdk21-openjdk,81,LicenseRef-Java
lua,80,MIT
libvorbis,77,BSD-3-Clause
pixman,75,MIT
mesa,73,MIT AND BSD-3-Clause AND SGI-B-2.0
libarchive,73,BSD-2-Clause
libwebp,69,BSD-3-Clause
graphene,67,MIT
libpcap,66,BSD-3-Clause
libxslt,65,MIT
nodejs,64,MIT
nss,63,MPL-2.0
rust,61,Apache-2.0 OR MIT
glu,55,SGI-B-2.0|MIT
protobuf,54,BSD-3-Clause
krb5,53,custom
php,52,PHP-3.01
libffi,52,MIT
xdg-utils,51,MIT
ttf-dejavu,50,custom
rocm-core,50,MIT
glew,50,LicenseRef-glew
abseil-cpp,50,Apache-2.0
libevent,50,BSD
libsamplerate,49,BSD
libpipewire,49,MIT
giflib,47,MIT
vulkan-icd-loader,46,Apache-2.0
libsasl,46,BSD-3-Clause-Attribution
libepoxy,43,MIT
json-c,43,MIT
ttf-liberation,42,custom:OFL
ttf-roboto,41,OFL-1.1
noto-fonts,41,OFL-1.1-no-RFN
libinput,41,MIT
postgresql-libs,39,PostgreSQL
opus,39,BSD-3-Clause
libxkbcommon-x11,39,MIT
libuv,39,custom
libogg,39,BSD
libcups,39,Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception AND BSD-3-Clause AND Zlib AND BSD-2-Clause
blas-openblas,39,BSD
libunwind,38,MIT
libsodium,38,custom:ISC
ttf-bitstream-vera,37,custom
libxss,37,X11
erlang-core,37,Apache-2.0
file,37,custom
ttf-input,36,custom
libxft,36,HPND-sell-variant
jansson,36,MIT
brotli,36,MIT
snappy,35,BSD-3-Clause
libva,35,MIT
openjpeg2,34,BSD-2-Clause|MIT
neovim,33,Apache-2.0|LicenseRef-vim
popt,33,custom
libldap,33,custom
onetbb,32,Apache-2.0

>>107164473
This is a selected/filtered list of some non-GPL software that may have already snuck into your system.

I URGE ALL MY GNU HOMIES TO FORCE-REMOVE ALL THESE PACKAGES FROM THEIR SYSTEMS RIGHT NOW.

CUT THE CANCER BEFORE IT SPREADS FURTHER.

Half of these are probably pozzed rust shit written by trannies hired by DEI programs.

Full list with at least three direct dependants is at:
https://0x0.st/K9Dz.csv

This is from the Arch repos. Adjust accordingly for other distros.

Thank you for your attention to this matter!

>>107163577
>if MINIX had a GPL license, Intel might not have used it
And would have simply shrugged and abandoned the whole management engine idea entirely, never trying to find another suitable codebase or build anything themselves, nope.

>>107164485
i'm about 95% sure this is satire, but you can just never know...

Good riddance. Lawyers should have never been allowed into our field. All they do is halt technical progress with their pages of restrictions. The less constraints the better. You don't need a legal team to read and understand the MIT license. Nobody is taking you to court either.

>>107164014
Protip in case you're not aware the GPL allows this too. Most of our embedded products use GPL code and the original developers aren't even aware of us let alone do they get any money or code.

>>107164628
if logically following an argument/theory starts to sound like satire, what does that say about the argument/theory?

>>107164842
...that it's probably satire?

>>107162849 (OP)
GNU+Linux will slow to the same crawl of development that HURD goes at. NSA+Microsoft+Red Hat+systemd+Rust+Linux will slowly transition from Extend phase to Extinguish phase and retards will still lap it up.

(You) freetards have already broken trust of sensible people with the "any later version" boilerplate. There is nothing else to be done.

>>107167341
TSMT
Imagine giving away your rights fully so FSF trannies can license your code under terms that don't even exist yet

>>107163667
>You still can't explain how GPL benefits small software businesses more than BSD license.
basically corpos and other big players are mandated to give their improvements back? so everyone benefits?

>>107163667
>basically corpos and other big players are mandated to give their improvements back? so everyone benefits?
You and everyone that shares this reasoning are no coder larpers that have never worked in the industry. Maybe there was a point when projecs like OpenWRT happened, but soon after that the big companies got wiser and now there are mostly two scenarios:
1. They avoid GPL code like the plague (how do authors benefit from nobody using their code again?)
2. They take over the project under the guise of good will contributing (that's happening with the Linux kernel and many other big projects)

>>107167341
cuck license fag coping

>>107163083
Certain jurisdictions require a licence.

>>107162849 (OP)
It's to allow for more proprietary software. I do believe there is a real danger that Linux might wither like BSDs because everyone is stingy with their contributions.

>>107167341
that's optional, for example linux is GPLv2, but not GPLv2+

LGPL3 > GPL3

If you want more software to use the GPL then write more GPL:d software and take a more active part in coding for distros.
Whining about it doesn't do much unless you have leverage over the distros in question.
Personally I don't really release source code but if I were to see the benefits of it i'd release it under GPL and make it clear they can contact me to buy a different licensed version if they so desire.

>>107163921
BSD is gets no money despite being used by Microsoft, Apple, Netflix, Nintendo and Sony as the base or components for their operating systems. If you check GitHub or any of the Python or JavaScript package managers you'll find thousands and thousands of packages that have not made a single cent and never will.

The idea that open source makes money but Free Software doesn't is corpo propaganda. The same kind of corpo propaganda that tells devs to male their programs MIT-icensed so maybe Google will buy it for a billion dollars. That bullshit is now completely gone, just like the junior webdev 300k salaries.

The only reason the FSF doesn't make any money is because The Linux Foundation stole all the credit from the GNU operating system.

>>107170788
Why would anyone take credit for Hurd?

>>107162849 (OP)
Can someone explain to me why this is important in simple terms?

>>107170809
No one will use GNU if they have the ability to choose something else.

>>107170816
Why should I care?

software patents were a mistake
and licenses are for fags

>>107170837
Stallman will be sad.

>>107162975
You're just giving shit for free, and it's always the greediest who take first.

>>107170274
It's optional, but because v2 and v3 are incompatible, the FSF thought that they can contain the split by changing the default boilerplate to allow for "upgrading", which they did some time before the release of v3, so it's more of an opt-out thing that you have to be aware of to not get screwed over by (e.g. someone can fork your project as v3 but you cannot merge any of that code back into your own project unless you upgrade your entire project to v3). Understandably, plenty of people didn't like this move.

>>107169882
Really? I thought this whole thread was a big GPL tranny cope session.

>>107163791
so basically it gets to 5 people and then uploaded to github by one of them... how does this enable money making in a post-internet world? I say this as someone who definitely would like to bundle the source code with a binary release but doesn't want to compete with my own code made free on github

>>107170971
the licence was envisioned in a time when distribution was an actual logistical task that took time, effort and resources to accomplish. therefore, it was sensible for whoever was doing it to ask for a fee. and because you paid money for it and because you'll be facing the same barriers to redistribution as the first guy, you're less likely to do it for free or at all.

now that most software can be beamed to almost any corner of the world within minutes, it makes distribution trivial and taking money for it nonsensical. there's 2 main ways that GPL software can make you money:
>selling commercial support
>selling GPL exemptions a.k.a. dual licencing

>>107168257
and how a mit license will help in that situation?
idealism takes you nowhere, gpl brings some mandatory advancements mit doesnt

>>107171886
>idealism takes you nowhere
>says the GPL troon

>>107163138
>this has happened before
I had never seen a project changing to a GPL license from a MIT one due to money before, and I'd like to learn. Could you show me when this happened?

>>107163385
>You cannot combine GPLv2 code with GPLv3 code, if the former does not have the "or later" clause.
you can. it just all becomes GPLv3. you are not the first wrong person in this thread, mind (or tenth).

>>107172561
Synapse, the Matrix server implementation, started off Apache licenced but got forked by Element and relicenced as AGPL, allegedly due to being unable/unwilling to compete with proprietary forks.

>>107172588
you can't relicense obligate gplv2 code as gplv3

>>107172588
Pic related is from gnu.org
I will repeat once again:
>You cannot combine GPLv2 code with GPLv3 code, if the former does not have the "or later" clause.

>>107172660
Only if you are the sole copyright holder, but at that point you can do whatever you want.

>>107172601
Thanks, didn't know that. That's really cool.
Here's the blog post for anyone else interested in reading about it:
https://element.io/blog/element-to-adopt-agplv3/

I also learned through that post that Grafana has done something similar in the past. I didn't know this was somewhat common. Learned something new today.
https://grafana.com/blog/2021/04/20/grafana-loki-tempo-relicensing-to-agplv3/

in this age anyone can host even desktop apps and serve them over the internet where the computing is done on the server and GPL does nothing to protect your freedom in that case
you should use AGPL instead

>freedom is how much you restrict others from using the code
you people are fucked in the head

>>107162898
The issue with strong copyleft is more so that it doesn't just stop proprietary and permissive software from absorbing it, but also other string copyleft.

GPLv2 code can't even absorb GPLv3 code. Grub for instance had to re-implement many filesystems that had GPLv2 implementations already because it was GPLv3 rather than being able to just absorb the code.

Strong copyleft only works if there be only one strong copyleft licence. They are in practice not compatible with each other.

>>107172904
I'll take the bait.
The only "restriction" the GPL has is the requirement for you to share back your code. It's essentially saying: "Give to others the same thing I gave to you". It's a mutual treatment.

Calling that "how much you restrict others from using the code" is like saying demanding respect from others after respecting them first is "restricting how others are able to treat you".
Sure, you are technically right, but this "restriction" is there to ensure everyone is treated with the same benefits.

>>107172973
>Give to others the same thing I gave to you
this isn't what people are arguing about and if a corpo swipes the code for their own thing you are still free to use the original code. the original code doesn't just evaporate. if anything it's proof the code is good and should be maintained by stewards if open source software. hosting the code for a proprietary cloud solution isn't really a big deal because people are paying to use the hardware. if that upsets you just do the same thing but make it free. my qualms with gpl in game dev is that I have to spend possibly 2 years working on a video game but must make it open source to comply. how do I get a return on my time investment? donations? fuck you

>>107173031
this. gpl shits on independent devs more than corpos that can afford powerful servers and data centers

>>107162898
>Unlike the GPL, which requires you to share derivative works, the BSD license doesn’t. You can take FreeBSD code, build on it, and never give anything back. This makes it a great foundation for products — but it also means there’s little reason for companies to return their contributions.
BSD sisters.... not like this...

>>107172952
That's not an issue with copyleft, but with licence compatibility in general. For example, you cannot take someone else's BSD-3-Clause code and re-release it as MIT, because then you'd be effectively removing the third clause requirement that the code came with.

>>107173031
you want to benefit from free software without returning that favour. you are the reason people don't like permissive licenses.

>>107173355
>without returning that favour
why would using it in a proprietary app when I can contribute back to it so everyone doesn't have to have the same bug? why would you assume I wouldn't contribute back? there are plenty of MIT and A2 repos that get support back because people aren't selfish assholes like you believe

>>107162849 (OP)
http://www.osscc.net/en/licenses.html
use CDDL
or
AGPLv3+NIGGER

>>107173031
>this isn't what people are arguing about
Then what are they arguing about? I argued directly against the point made in the post I replied to. If you want to talk about something else, I'd love to talk.

>the original code doesn't just evaporate
It doesn't, but I cannot use whatever modifications were added on top of the orignal code if the corpo doesn't want to share. That's the problem I'm arguing about here. I write some code, share it with you, you take that code, improve it, and do not share those improvements back with me. This is my main problem with permissive licenses and, in my opinion, should always be avoided. And the GPL is a great tool to avoid that.

>how do I get a return on my time investment?
Maybe you could look at Shattered Pixel Dungeon is doing?
https://shatteredpixel.com/
He has a patreon, and sells the game on several platforms. And people buy the game from those places because they are very convenient and provide a good service. Also because the game is pretty fun. I'm sure there are other examples of Free Software games, but this is just the one I could think of right now.

>donations? fuck you
You seem mad, calm down nigger.

>>107173590
>Then what are they arguing about?
bitching about corpos using code to make proprietary apps either through loopholes or just not caring about the license

>It doesn't, but I cannot use whatever modifications were added on top of the orignal code if the corpo doesn't want to share
abloo blooo bloo, fucking cry me a river. just improve the code by contributing. complaining others won't is such a fucking toddler argument

>Maybe you could look at Shattered Pixel Dungeon is doing?
ebeg? no, it isn't that fruitful otherwise most indie studios would be doing it.
>there are other examples of Free Software games, but this is just the one I could think of right now.
because they are irrelevant and aren't good for continual revenue

>You seem mad, calm down nigger.
nigger, you made up virtual boogeymen to justify people being poor forever. this fucking mental gymnastic is retarded since most comp sci focused people need to survive and running a charity that doesn't pay them isn't working anymore. grow the fuck up and get with the times

>>107172759
that's probably for the "or later", because going from GPLv2 to GPLv4 could be not allowed.
GPLv2 to GPLv3 is fine AFAIK, or that's how it's treated in practice at least. see ffmpeg build options as an example.

>>107173704
You are fucking retarded.

>>107173590
>It doesn't, but I cannot use whatever modifications were added on top of the orignal code if the corpo doesn't want to share.
There's no way you're someone who has held a real job, while simultaneously thinking corpo code is something that you want to have.

>>107173865
kek, true. the only case I can think of that makes me mad is Nvidia forking opencl to make cuda proprietary. every webshit company is just making jeet garbage all day every day

>>107173904
CUDA predates OpenCL by a couple of years though.

>>107174220
it's a fork of opencl v2 retard

>>107162849 (OP)
For me it's All Rights Reserved

>>107173704
>FFmpeg is licensed under the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) version 2.1 or later. However, FFmpeg incorporates several optional parts and optimizations that are covered by the GNU General Public License (GPL) version 2 or later. If those parts get used the GPL applies to all of FFmpeg.
>or later
>OR LATER
kys namefag retard

>>107173764
>>107174406
i was referring to this picrel (link triggers the spam filter). and yes, i may have been wrong.
truth of the matter is, there aren't many projects out there that are GPLv2-only. in the context of ffmpeg+deps, i did find a couple that are *almost* related in the arch repos, and they are vapoursynth plugins.
>namefag
nice of newfags to be this confident

>>107174237
usecase?

>>107175396
and what exactly is that supposed to prove? it's just a list of licences from most restrictive to least, down to LGPLv2.1, which is what ffmpeg itself is licenced as.
>le joke is on you, i merely saged the wrong field
kys retard

>>107176794
>down to LGPLv2.1, which is what ffmpeg itself is licenced as.
i was probably wrong as i already stated, but you're tech illiteracy is making you look like an idiot.
read the "configure" file, dumb retard.
>i merely saged the wrong field
"Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent, and discerning if he holds his tongue."

>>107176956
alright, you've convinced me to rebuild my namefag filter, dumbshitfag. had i done this earlier, this retard conversation wouldn't even have happened

>>107172783
>https://element.io/blog/element-to-adopt-agplv3/
interesting case
ty

>>107163577
I kneel

>>107170788
Microsoft (unbelievably, xenix, eh?) and Apple are legitimate licences. Osx is one of the few and only popular true unix derivatives out there.

>>107162849 (OP)
We need more people like Stallman. But I am afraid all is lost without education. People are retarded, mass cleansing of normies would be ideal.

>>107179214
>People are retarded, mass cleansing of normies would be ideal.
Holy based

>>107163022
>GNU coreutils is GPLv3, so it cannot be a "component" of Linux, which is GPLv2.
GNU coreutils is not a component of Linux, it's a component of GNU. This is why it's important to call it GNU/Linux, it's GNU running on the Linux kernel, but they're two separate projects that only communicate through a system call interface.

>>107164473
>MPL-2.0
Weak copyleft. Cuck license, but the bull has to wear a condom.