Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Wednesday April 05 2017, @07:33PM   Printer-friendly
from the fork-the-linux-foundation dept.

Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard

After stirring up a ruckus by using words like "restrictive" and "virus" to describe the GPL in a Linux.com article, the Linux Foundation responds by quietly removing the post from the website.

The Linux Foundation has no respect for FOSS. Nor does it seem care about any users of Linux who aren't connected with the enterprise. It's been that way since the beginning. It now appears that the Foundation also has little respect for the GPL...you know, Linux's license. Nor does it appear to be much of a believer in the notion of transparency.

[...] On March 23, the Linux Foundation posted an article on its website, Linux.com, by Greg Olson, the foundation's senior director open source consulting services. In the article, "Five Legal Risks For Companies Involved in Open Source Software Development," he wrote that "permissive licenses present little risk," while referring to the GPL and other copyleft licenses as "Restrictive Licenses" and "viral."

[...] While his points are accurate enough, and reflect what I've already written in this article, the terms he uses suggest that the foundation holds the GPL and other copyleft licenses in contempt.

Source: http://fossforce.com/2017/04/lin-desktop-linux-gpl-openness/

takyon: Archive of the Linux.com article. The original blog post currently says "Access Denied" and "You are not authorized to access this page."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @07:54AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @07:54AM (#489558)

    First of all is this 1988? No? Then you really need to quit that lame "M$" shit that went out with DOS and makes you look like a twat.

    Because we are all supposed to hate Microsoft now?

    Look, some of us are old enough to remember back when we actually LIKED Microsoft, when they made the one programming language that ran on all our computers: BASIC. And back then, string variables were written A$, B$, C$, M$, etc. Sure we could also use two-letter variables (e.g. AA$), but they didn't make the code more readable, so we only used them when we ran out of single letter variables.

    38911 BASIC BYTES FREE

    READY.