• t3rmit3@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      I’ve considered that if Torvalds changes the license to AGPLv3, meaning servers have to publish their source code, it would an extremely quick collapse and abandonment of Linux.

      AGPL evolved out of people saying, “my SaaS application isn’t being distributed at all, it’s just living on my server, so I can use your copy-left software without releasing my source alterations, and not violate the (GPLv2) license, because the license is based on distribution”. If the Linux kernel itself went AGPL (which isn’t what AGPL is even for), it would mean that modifications of the kernel would have to be published by whoever is doing the modifications, even if that kernel was only being used in a SaaS capacity, but most companies aren’t modifying the kernel and then offering that modified software over the network, they’re just running software on top of the upstream kernel, and AGPL higher up in the chain doesn’t touch that software, just like the current Linux kernel GPL doesn’t automatically apply to some python code you run on your Linux server.

      Android, Amazon Linux, and IOS (the Cisco one) would just not move to the AGPL kernel (since you can’t retroactively apply it to already-released kernels), and probably continue their own forks as totally separate as they already do.

      But the 99% of companies who are just using stock Linux distros e.g. stock Ubuntu to run their SaaS applications wouldn’t be affected. It definitely would not see the use collapse overnight.

        • t3rmit3@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          No, their derivatives are not running on top of another person’s OS, they are themselves the OS. Hardware doesn’t make itself compatible with Linux, Linux makes itself compatible with hardware (by using or creating drivers). Those other companies do as well (or own the hardware stack as well, like Cisco).

            • t3rmit3@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              This doesn’t reflect how that works right now, though, nor how AGPL would affect most corporations.

              You listed 2 companies (Cisco and Google) that maintain their own forked Linux versions (IOS and Android). Neither of those OSes are server OSes already. They’re router and mobile phone OSes.

              The other hundreds of thousands of companies don’t even touch the kernel, and would not be affected. It would not change the landscape at all to move it to AGPL.

    • within_epsilon@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      What is socialist about GPL?

      Being forced to open source seems like a pyramid scheme. Better examples of socialist and libertarian politics are licenses like MIT or BSD. They embody use without damage.

      Stallman seems to have a flawed understanding of hierarchy and power. He exhibits such in the infectious GPL and pedophillic political takes. I purposely avoid GPL or derivatives when considering libraries.

        • davehtaylor@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 month ago

          I say socialist because of forced redistribution of any code changes, nobody is allowed to keep any new development for themself to use.

          You have a flawed understanding of socialism