Re:Cracks are showing in Enterprise Open Source's foundations
by stereolambda on Thursday January 28, 2021 @06:05PM
(#25950826)
> But that is exactly* the argument against GPL for the kernel in the past.*
Since you bring that up, could you give some good link for reading about it?
Re:Cracks are showing in Enterprise Open Source's foundations
by gcblkjaidfj on Thursday January 28, 2021 @09:37PM
(#25953011)
I tried to google for you planning to hit the very first result and mock you. I will admit my shame.
To my surprise, despite this controversy being bigger than the systemd one recently, it mostly happened on mailing lists and other non-public forums!
I wonder if anyone collected all that history.
most of the public materials of the time are diatribes by non-coders: https://books.google.com/books?id=GlAEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA90&dq=gp...
That is fine for creating applications. It still required drivers and other things that expose syscalls to be open and GPLed.
> Even if Linux were permissively licensed,
The tainted kernel was the attack on the GPL itself i talked about. After tainted kernel, it is pretty much NOT-GPL, hence the devs gave in to a more permissive license while still calling it GPL. So the rest of the point is moot. Linux kernel DID adopt a permissive license, which is the reason we do not have proper open source android today.
> But given the more or less total lack of adoption
chicken and egg problem. But that is *exactly* the argument against GPL for the kernel in the past.