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."
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Wednesday April 05 2017, @07:37PM (5 children)
Does M$ have anything to do with this recent escalation? Or is this business as usual? To be honest, I do not keep up with the Linux foundation itself, but had read something a few months back about MS making a move regarding it.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @08:08PM
The Linux Foundation used to have membership tier for individuals and had two board positions elected by those individuals. All that was removed last year, so the Foundation is now officially just a big circle jerk for a dozen or so large corporations.
Most of those corporations are not friends of free software. Quite the opposite, in fact.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Hairyfeet on Thursday April 06 2017, @02:00AM (2 children)
First of all is this 1988? No? Then you really need to quit that lame "M$" shit that went out with DOS and makes you look like a twat. Second MSFT hasn't given a single fuck about Linux in better than half a decade, you can even have one of several distros loaded from MSFT on Azure if you wish.
Finally you ARE getting the EEE treatment but are too blind with MSFT hate to see the one about to pull a train on your ass isn't old toothless MSFT but the Google juggernaut [arstechnica.com] that has quietly banned GPL V3 from their products, cut funding for AOSP, and is locking more and more critical subsystems behind the playwall. At this rate by 2020 at the latest you can have all the Android source code you want, it will be about as useful as the source code for TiVo because all the parts you actually need to get it to run will either be black box proprietary firmware or behind the Playwall, neither of which you have any access to.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @06:47AM
Get a clue pal and stop spouting BS.
Micro$oft is making MUCH more money with it's patent racket on Android phones than its own miserable devices. And they recently joined Linux foundation. Micro$oft loves Linux.
It's you who's living in the 1980s.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @07:54AM
First of all is this 1988? No? Then you really need to quit that lame "M$" 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.
(Score: 3, Informative) by butthurt on Thursday April 06 2017, @04:00AM
You may be thinking of the story from November, "Microsoft Joins Linux Foundation."
/article.pl?sid=16/11/16/1921225 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @07:53PM
In what world could statements like that from the idiots at The Linux Foundation be considered helpful to increase the use of Linux? And so classy of them to bury the post instead of discussing it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @07:57PM
I knew people at red hat back in the early 00's and this was already a problem, red hat isn't the ms of linux they are the oracle, don't expect them to do anything that isn't making money. Like Ubuntu VC's got involved and there is no hope for anything reasonable after that.
4g killed the internet star, 4g killed the internet star
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Wednesday April 05 2017, @08:07PM
Greg Olson, the foundation's senior director open source consulting services
Is there a missing "of", or something? Are business just so busy they have no time for prepositions?
he wrote that "The most permissive licenses present little risk,
FTFY.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Wednesday April 05 2017, @08:08PM (2 children)
As far as I know, Linus Torvalds owns the trademark Linux. Maybe he should revoke the Linux Foundation's right to use it.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by bart9h on Wednesday April 05 2017, @08:49PM
interesting... but will he have motivation to do that?
(Score: 4, Informative) by Koen on Wednesday April 05 2017, @08:56PM
As far as I know, Linus Torvalds owns the trademark Linux.
Correct.
Maybe he should revoke the Linux Foundation's right to use it.
Not very likely without further consequences: Linus Torvalds is an employee of the Linux foundation.
/. refugees on Usenet: comp.misc [comp.misc]
(Score: 5, Interesting) by edIII on Wednesday April 05 2017, @08:15PM (5 children)
Microsoft: Complete fucking train wreck. No privacy, No respect for the consumers, users, or developers.
Apple: Complete fucking train wreck, but somehow beautiful and graceful with rounded edges while doing it. Not to mention shiny. If you mention privacy, they kick you in the balls. Controlled Computing never looked so sexy and hip. Left behind their original bullshit a long time ago and just co-opted BSD and created their own variant.
Linux: Starting to look like NASCAR. SystemD is not any help either. So they don't just violate Unix philosophy, now they don't give a shit about the principles of openness in the first place. I thought it originated with Linus' ideas regarding FOSS that was influenced by Stallman....
OpenBSD: The manuals are well written, heavy on Perl, and you are shipped suspenders with your DVD installation disks. Nothing works out of the box, by design apparently. Secretly suspected to be written by hard core masochists.
Fuck, we need another revolution in computing with huge emphasis on the free. The Linux Foundation is now 100% pure corporate.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 4, Touché) by WillR on Wednesday April 05 2017, @08:20PM
If you mention privacy, they kick you in the balls.
Not really, they mention privacy all the time in their own ads. Now, if you mention interoperability, they do kick you in the balls.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @08:28PM
"...shipped suspenders with your DVD installation disks."
wait do they ship you Ox blood boots for addition cost?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @09:37PM
I would love to move my parents to ReactOS... but the system is still unusable for everyday work.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Thursday April 06 2017, @02:05AM
The obvious solution to your problem: GNU Hurd, because it turns out RMS was right all along!
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jimtheowl on Thursday April 06 2017, @03:37AM
In my experience, everything works out of the box. Its just that the application you might have shot yourself in the foot with is not likely included in that box.
I noticed that FreeBSD is not on your list. It might be worth checking on before calling for a revolution.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Soylentbob on Wednesday April 05 2017, @08:36PM (7 children)
They are not Linux friends [wikipedia.org], they are industry exploiting Linux because they can't defeat it.
Platin members:
AT&T, Cisco Systems, Fujitsu Ltd, Hitachi, Huawei, IBM Corp., Intel Corp., Microsoft Corp., NEC Corp., Oracle Corp., Qualcomm Innovation Center Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd
Ok, some more likeable companies are also members (SuSE is gold member, Red Hat is Silver member), but they won't set the tune as not-platinum members.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @08:44PM (1 child)
Red hat is the founding member and has a permanent seat on the board they do set policy
(Score: 5, Informative) by NewNic on Wednesday April 05 2017, @09:29PM
RedHat is the company that brought you Gnome3 and systemd.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Wednesday April 05 2017, @09:20PM
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Burz on Thursday April 06 2017, @02:00AM (3 children)
MS just recently joined. If there is any one company in the Linux Foundation roster with a history of rabid anti-GPL positions, it is Microsoft.
So you might not consider the appearance of this article to be a coincidence.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by butthurt on Thursday April 06 2017, @04:11AM (2 children)
A December 2015 blog post from the executive director of the Linux Foundation explains some of the great things the foundation and Microsoft were doing as partners.
https://www.linux.com/blog/linux-foundation-and-microsoft-great-start-great-partnership [linux.com]
(Score: 2) by Soylentbob on Thursday April 06 2017, @05:39AM (1 child)
So far for "embrace". I'm so curious what the next two steps entail. I guess also something starting with "e"?
(Score: 3, Touché) by butthurt on Thursday April 06 2017, @06:52AM
Eclipse, for one.
/article.pl?sid=16/03/10/1953246 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by tibman on Wednesday April 05 2017, @09:10PM
Corporate thinking. They want to take and not give back. For several reasons. Random people poking through their code and finding glaring security issues. Competitors "stealing" their work (hah!). Forced to give away part of the product free.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by pnkwarhall on Wednesday April 05 2017, @10:49PM (8 children)
The GPL is "viral" by design. Use of this word does not (necessarily) imply a negative perspective on the license, but a true understanding of Stallman's intent. I'm surprised it's taken this long for someone at the Linux Foundation to bring this up publicly.
Lift Yr Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @10:59PM (1 child)
Don't be silly. Who ever heard of a positive or neutral virus? Besides it's entirely inaccurate or do you catch viruses by choice and with full knowledge of what it entails?
Linux Foundation is a bunch of jerks with lots of money. Apparently a fairly myopic mob too...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @02:00AM
http://jvi.asm.org/content/early/2015/04/17/JVI.02974-14.full.pdf+html?ijkey=hiV1IZ7CiqM/s&keytype=ref&siteid=asmjournals [asm.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @11:05PM
Linux Foundation is using it in the HIV spirit of the term.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Thursday April 06 2017, @02:23AM (1 child)
The goal of the GPL was to create a Free Software ecosystem that could never have its source closed off, or have some major corporation take the work of Free Software developers and turn it into their own proprietary thing. It's *supposed* to be what the proprietary folks are calling "viral": Like the more restrictive Creative Commons licenses, you can't (legally) take something that's GPL'd, include it in your own thing, and sell the results without including the source code.
I'm pleased as punch that the suits hate it. It means that on the whole, it's working!
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @04:51AM
SystemD gets around this by serializing everything.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @08:06AM (2 children)
Bullshit.
Copyright law is "viral" by default. Viral in this case means that you can't just change the license of other peoples code.
If I make some product containing Windows, the result will still be under the MSFT EULA. If I make some product containing Linux, the result will still be under the GPL.
A few licenses allow you to redistribute under a different license, and the term "viral" is used against the GPL by people who really want to profit off other peoples code.
(Score: 2) by choose another one on Thursday April 06 2017, @01:40PM (1 child)
Copyright law is "viral" by default. Viral in this case means that you can't just change the license of other peoples code.
_You_ cannot change the licence of _other peoples_ code, unless assigned that right by the copyright holder, _you_ may, however, require _other people_ to change the licence of _their_ code - which the GPL does.
If I make some product containing Windows, the result will still be under the MSFT EULA. If I make some product containing Linux, the result will still be under the GPL.
If you make a product using an MSFT library, activeX control, inlined header files functions etc. etc. then you must follow the MSFT developer agreements / EULA for the use and (potentially) distribution of those components. None of these (at least in my 20+yrs of experience with MS developer platforms) require you to ship _your_ code and _your_ product under any particular licence. In MSFT, and other copyright licenses, the licence stops at the code file or the single component (library file or code file).
In contrast if you make a product using a GPL library, or inline functions from GPL header files, or link to any GPL code, then you may _only_ distribute your product and _your code_ under the GPL (at least in my 20+yrs of experience with GPL developer platforms).
Now to me those two cases look very different, others may have a different perspective.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08 2017, @07:21PM
No. Only your modifications of GPL code are required to be released as GPL; you can distribute GPL libraries as part of your own project, but you must supply source for that GPL component.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Thursday April 06 2017, @04:06AM
https://web.archive.org/web/20170323185715/https://www.linux.com/blog/learn/chapter/open-source-management/2017/3/5-legal-risks-companies-involved-open-source-software-development [archive.org]
(Score: 1) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Thursday April 06 2017, @07:53PM
It's only the Extinguish phase kicking into gear.
This sig for rent.