My, how the tides have changed.<p>Those of us old enough to remember, the landscape looked a lot different 15 years ago. There was optimism, there was a desire to install Linux on everything possible, and the GPL was the default license for most new free software that was getting written.<p>It was not without strife. Since 1998, people like esr have been saying how the GPL is passé and is no longer needed because open source won, because open source was superior, because companies would naturally want to share their source code. Nobody needed anymore to be coerced into respecting user freedoms. Then the corporations started to take note and through their clout, they have convinced their employees that nothing is worse than keeping code free. Only unimportant scraps of code can be free, but the real code must remain secret, restricted, proprietary. AGPL is the ultimate evil to be avoided at all costs.<p>I don't like this shift. I miss the Slashdot days. I miss the jokes about installing Linux on dead badgers. I wish we had a collective desire to do something about the most widely deployed proprietary software controlling our lives in the pocket computers so many of us carry around with us. We haven't won. The code is locked up, the spying is worse than ever, and the corporations are winning. They even influence the direction of Linux, actively trying to subvert GPL compliance efforts such as the VMWare GPL lawsuit by pulling Conservancy's funding.<p>The GPL is a much-needed defence. Software controls ever more things of the internet. We need to bring back the rebellious attitude of the late 90s and early 00s. Linux needs to be installed on <i>all</i> of your phone, down to the radio firmware (and the dead badger).
Here's the full quote by Greg Olson that was supposedly so offensive:<p><pre><code> The most permissive licenses present little risk and few
compliance requirements. These licenses include BSD and
MIT, and others, that have minimal requirements, all the
way to Apache and the Eclipse Public License, which are
more elaborate in addressing contributions, patents, and
indemnification.
In the middle of the spectrum are the so-called ‘weak
viral licenses’ which require sharing source code to any
changes made to the originally licensed code, but not
sharing of other source code linked or otherwise bound to
the original open source code in question. The most
popular and frequently encountered licenses in this
category are the Mozilla Public License and the Common
Public Attribution License.
Restrictive Licenses present the most legal risk and
complexity for companies that re-distribute or distribute
software. These licenses are often termed ‘viral’ because
software combined and distributed with this licensed
software must be provided in source code format under the
terms of those licenses. These requirements present
serious risks to the preservation of proprietary software
rights. The GNU General Public License is the archetype of
this category, and is, in fact, the most widely used open
source license in the world.
</code></pre>
It is beyond me how this analysis, which appears to be as objective as can possibly be, can be taken as an insult at all, let alone lead one to conclude that the " Linux Foundation has no respect for FOSS".
I don't know enough about this to take sides but I do think that the author of this piece is being a bit misleading on at least one point. This piece says:<p>> <i>... Greg Olson [referred] to the GPL and other copyleft licenses as “Restrictive Licenses” and “viral.”</i><p>The original article, which he then quoted, reads:<p>> <i>These licenses are often termed ‘viral’ because ...</i><p>So, while Mr. Olson <i>did</i> use the term "viral" in his piece, <i>he</i> didn't specifically call them "viral". Instead, he said, quite literally, that "these licenses are often termed 'viral'" (and they are).<p>Anyways, the open source world has been having this argument forever -- often in the form of whether the BSD v. GPL is more "free" -- and it all depends on whose point of view you're looking at it from (the developer's or the user's).
The argument from the permissive licensing side:<p>The reason some programmers hold GPL in contempt isn't due to picking a sports team. It's really annoying to have to explain to a true believer (of GPL) that it potentially taints codebases it mixes with.<p>It's also a license that's complex and hasn't been tested in across jurisdictions. So arguing about what happens on a message board isn't fruitful since there is no case law. You may be recommended to "see a lawyer". I've spoken to a few people who have, ultimately the lawyer throws their hands in the air and say we don't have answers to the "What if's"; there isn't case law. And at that, the consensus of a random person on the internet isn't going to hold weight if you're accused of violating the terms of the license.<p>It's hard to pick GPL on the merits. Permissively licensed projects don't seem to be having reciprocity issues. Can't remember the last time I heard these thriving BSD, MIT, Apache2, ISC licensed projects complaining about freeloaders.<p>By the way, really happy Nintendo Switch picked up FreeBSD recently. Looking forward to upstream patches, even knowing it's <i>entirely voluntary</i> for them to give back.<p>Why? Because the <i>potential reciprocity</i> from a big player is better than having a license that obligates reciprocity strictly, even punitively. Which could cause them to look elsewhere, to a proprietary solution. No entity wants to risk their hard work to become a derivative of a smaller project they pull in.
I'm sorry, I'm not seeing it. One person involved with the Linux Foundation wrote an article that used some terms this author and some others didn't like, and after some outcry the Linux Foundation removed it. Somehow this makes the entire organization a non-friend of Desktop Linux and the GPL?<p>It's just such a massive leap of logic. The GPL is in the most restrictive class of open-source licenses for companies, and it <i>is</i> viral by nature. Should those terms be sugar-coated? I didn't read an ounce of contempt in the quoted section.
FOSS != GPL.<p>Saying the linux foundation is "[n]ot a Friend of Desktop Linux, the GPL, or Openness" because they published a piece that is negative about the GPL is sensationalist and absurd.<p>There's a legitimate debate to be had about copyleft vs. less restrictive licenses, but articles like this aren't helping matters for GPL - all they do is strengthen the image of copyleft advocates as being extremists who are detached from reality.
I'm no LF fanboy, but the tone of this article doesn't really help any cause. I think the key question would be to ask what percentage of the funds LF receives are effectively used for FOSS purposes. If it turns out some of those funds are being wasted on having FOSS conferences in exotic places, followed by karaoke in Seoul with "Linux partners" then it'd be good to expose things like that. A cursory observation indicates most of LF's management aren't coders so that makes me worry whether this is a management-heavy "charity".
And here we go with the politics again.<p>It's GPL vs all the other open source licenses. That's the way it's always been, and that's the way it always will be.<p>Those who think it'll stifle innovation by locking up novelty in proprietary code will chose GPL.<p>Those who think it'll stifle innovation by holding back adoption in the free market will chose one of the others.<p>And the two will NEVER meet. This is a religious war, and neither side will concede even an inch.<p>Meanwhile, the world goes on, people make things and money, and virtually nobody gives a shit about your arguments.
I think it sad that so many people are to hostile toward the GPL and the FSF, especially GPLv3 my license of choice.<p>I love the GPLv3 because it ensures user freedom all the way and I think people who claim that is not "open" because of that totally miss the point. It makes sure the software stays open for the users. But of course the big companies who want to close down their stuff, abuse open source to use in in their proprietary stuff they make just for profit maximization (debatable if this even makes a difference)<p>I see all the red Flags and I am totally with the articles author on this one. I mean Microsoft is part of the Linux foundation and all this huge companies. They are in there to push their agenda and its obviously not freedom and transparency for the user. I think its sad how many people here in the comment section are really fail to see it or intentionally side with this cooperations because they are somehow involved and actually put themselves over the users freedoms.<p>I wish Richard Stallman would be the same person as Linus Torvalds. I wish Linux would switch over to GPLv3 and a Linux Foundation would be headed by organizations like the EFF, FSF ... not some corrupt cooperations that are up to corrupting this great thing.<p>I think people should really learn to read between the lines, the signs are clear this is not good. Why would M$ have any interest in Linux or the desktop? Even the companies who use Linux heavy in their servers have actually years of investment into their software for the users that is often still only windows and macOS so why would they want to maintain/rewrite their stuff for Linux desktops? They care about their server farms not about how free their users are.<p>When big money is involved chances are that its not used for good but rather to gatekeep, protect and maximize.
I've always used licensing for indemnity and nothing more. Copyright enforcement is a pretty costly pursuit, and it's fairly unlikely anything that we develop would be worth that litigation, and the assumption that at no point we ourselves were not culprit of some other infringements allowing for counter-suit. so for just not being held responsible if someone uses something of ours that blows up in their face (possibly literally) I just stick with good old bsd.
I'd note that the Linux foundation is in charge of more then just Linux, and some of the other projects (i.e. Node.js or RethinkDB) use permissive licenses.
Corporations want to include code other people wrote, for free, and without any legal obligations or liability.<p>That shouldn't be a surprise to <i>anyone</i>.
What if Microsoft was secretly working on the next Windows incarnation as a proprietary GUI on top of a Unix like kernel much like as Google did with Android and to a lesser extent Apple did with MacOS? This way they could profit from the work of the community (device drivers, low level security etc) lowering their development and maintenance costs.<p>Being a big player in the Linux Foundation it could then make sense if they and others acted against any support of OSS Linux on the desktop.
I really wish the GNU folks would stop playing committee politics every chance they get, but then again thats what you get when an organization loosing all of it's real world power despite being on the winning side of an argument.
This article is an insane rant. She didn't even spell the ED's name right - it's Zemlin. Did the author even ask the LF for a statement?
The tone of the article is very disturbing. I would think not supporting the GPL is a deadly sin if I did not know about open source licenses.<p>Furthermore, as it is mentioned, one person's article does not automatically determine the foundation's stance, especially if they "quietly removed" it.<p>Are there FSF snipers waiting around for anyone pointing out that their license is viral and restrictive?