Almost certainly just somebody that distrusts all business by default.
I am all for holding business to account but can we not acknowledge that much of what we love in our lives would not be possible without business?
Kagi is not my friend or anything but they seem like a pretty decent company to me. I have seen no reason to be so cynical about them.
I do not use Fedora and you can consider the opinion above a valid downvote. I just want to weigh in that it seems far too extreme so do not read too much into that.
I used Fedora in the distant past and try it from time to time. It is fine and completely normal as a distro. Given its support for SELinux, it is fairly secure.
I agree with the last sentence. Do not be afraid of making the wrong choice. Distro differences are minor compared to the switch you are making and mostly a matter of preference. It is easy to switch once you know more (if you even want to).
Awesome.
Not installing Plasma from the default repos on Debian Stable though obviously.
When I say “Debian”, I mean “Debian Stable” which is what I think most people mean when they Debian without qualification.
The GPL does nothing for MY freedom.
Freedom to have sex with somebody against their will is not a “freedom” for me. It is subjugation for them. Something does not become a “freedom” simply because it benefits me.
The right to eat crops grown by others is not a “freedom”. It is an entitlement.
That said, there is nothing immoral, unethical, or wrong about me growing crops and providing seeds to others on the condition that they share the resulting crops with me or even with everyone. This is a contract and hopefully a mutually beneficial one. All good as long as the terms are known up-front and all parties consent.
In my view, that last paragraph is the GPL. There is nothing wrong with it at all. However, it does not make either party to the contact “more free”. In fact, you a bit less free in the future when you agree to a contact, because you have to abide by its terms. But at least you got there freely.
Permissive licenses are not a contract. They are a gift. They make no demands. They take away no freedom at all.
Both are valid choices. I have no quarrel with somebody choosing the GPL.
I do not agree that permissive licenses are less free or that the GPL is moreso.
If it was truly about MY freedom, choosing a permissive license would not upset you.
Are you willing to provide unpaid labor for corporations?
When I release code as Open Source, I am providing unpaid labour to everyone. My work is a public good. Like science.
I welcome collaboration from everyone (including corporations). That is the spirit of Open Source.
I do not demand it. That is the nature of freedom.
they are not obligated to release the modified code under the same license
Agreed
the community receives nothing back for their labor.
The community has the source code that has been released as Open Source. That is what results from their labour. They can continue to collaborate and improve it. What they have “for their labor” is totally unmodified. Nothing has been lost. Possibly, nothing has been gained. This is not unique to corporations. The vast majority of the users of the code will contribute back nothing.
As it turns out, corporations are a major (majority) source of Open Source software and so it is their labor that we all benefit from. This is true for both permissive and copyleft licenses. And, true to form, few of us give anything back.
[the GPL] obligates that the modified code must be released as GPL
Agreed.
So GPL guarantees that the community benefits.
We disagree big picture.
First, I see a world with greater freedom as a benefit on its own.
Second, I think the GPL discourages corporate contribution. Corporations write most Open Source software. The GPL does not prevent natural monopolies in Open Source. Red Hat has enormous influence over Linux as a platform and all of free software as a whole. The GPL does not stop this and may in fact contribute. There is a reason it is their preferred license for the considerable amount if software that they write. In my view, better communities develop around permissive licenses. Just like, my opinion man.
Third, the GPL shrinks ecosystems and restricts my ability to build on and share code. I cannot combine ZFS and Linux. I could if either one (or both) was permissively licensed. That is a loss of freedom for ME.
The act of choosing a license political one
Totally agree.
I also think that the number one way that corporations profit from code without giving back is to sell it as a service. And the GPL does not help with this at all.
Adding to this, Google created Android, wrote all the source code, and released it as Open Source.
By definition, Google cannot take anything here. It is only a question of what they give way in the future.
What Google wants is for people to use Google services. So they are making that less and less optional. There is no way for them to mandate this in Open Source and so they are shrinking the size of AOSP.
Online “services” are the greatest threat to software freedom. What kind of license is used has little to do with it.
Since this is a “GPL saves the world” thread, how would the GPL change anything? Android is mostly permissively licensed. But let’s assume that it is all GPL. Since we are talking about code Google wrote, nothing changes at all.
And the Linux kernel is already GPL licensed. Does that mean I can run whatever I want on my phone?
No. The threats to freedom in the Android space have literally nothing to do with permissive vs copyleft.
Do you think IBM wouldn’t make Red Hat completely proprietary if they had the chance?
No. I don’t. For quite a few reasons.
1 - Red Hat has released new software (quite a lot actually) that they wrote, as GPL since the IBM purchase (rather directly refuting your thought experiment)
2 - A huge amount of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is permissively licensed. They have the chance every day to make this proprietary. They don’t. Again, answering your question.
3 - Red Hat is one of the most profitable parts of IBM.
4 - IBM has left the Product and Engineering teams independent. Because of #3 obviously.
5 - I use facts when forming my opinions
Red Hat is the most commercially successful Open Source company and perhaps the biggest proponent and prolific author of GPL software. They founded (created on purpose) one of the most successful community Linux distributions (Fedora)—a distribution with annoying dedication to free software (eg. codecs). Many of the “leaders” and “contributors” to Fedora are Red Hat employees. Red Hat of course does not make Fedora proprietary since having it be “community” led is a core part of their strategy.
Finally, you do not have to fear a Red Hat take over. Because it already happened.
Half the software (source code) you think of as GNU sits on servers Red Hat manages and controls. This is where that software is developed (not in Savannah—which is just a mirror). I am talking about GCC, Glibc, core utils. Etc.
Do you use systemd, pipewire, Wayland, Mesa, Podman, Cockpit, or Flatpak? Where did all this software come from? From the Free Software Foundation? University students? No, these are all part of the “Linux platform” as defined by Red Hat and they have swept us all along with them as they create it. You can probably add GNOME and GTK to the list at this point.
Has Debian moved to all these technologies? Why? Because of the FSF? No. Because of Red Hat.
Personally, I am ok with it. My core distro uses A LOT of software brought to me by Red Hat and I am thankful for it. But I avoid a lot of Red Hat software like GCC, Glibc, and systemd. But the replacements I use are also mostly corporately funded (Clang, MUSL, and dinit).
Your opponents. You do not get to decide who my allies and opponents are.
I agree with everything you are saying “for you”. It sounds like the GPL is the perfect choice for code that you wrote (assuming you wrote any).
But stop telling me what to think and do. Or, at least stop using the word “freedom” while you peddle your authoritarianism.
My philosophy is single. Those that wrote the code should get to choose the license. Many people prefer the collaboration that permissive licences allow. I do not oppose that.
Permissive license offer greater freedom to users of the code that already exists. The only benefit of copyleft is that it lets you demand future code that you did not write and that the authors do not want to Open Source. It is about restricting their freedom, not enhancing yours.
Permissive licenses provide all of the “4 freedoms” that the Free Software Foundation talks about. You cannot really talk about the differences between cooyleft and permissive as a “freedom” because they are not.
The name “permissive” kind of gives it away that permissive licenses offer more freedoms about what you can do with the code you were given.
Most Open Source software is written by corporations. The Open Source licenses are an advantage to them.
The biggest source of GPL software is probably Red Hat (IBM). They maintain most of what people think of when they think of GNU software and they wrote many of the newer GPL projects that everybody uses (like systemd).
The trend has been towards permissive licenses for a long time. The have led to more Open Source software, not less.
Look at Clang vs GCC. Clang attracts a greater diversity of corporate contribution and generates greater Open Source diversity. Zig and Rust appeared on LLVM for a reason.
What we should be worried about is the cloud. It allows big companies to outsell the little companies writing Open Source software. Neither permissive nor copyleft licenses prevent this.
Had to upgrade my wife as she could not use Zoom and I think Teams. Plus Office could not get final updates and even Numbers and Keynote wanted a newer version of macOS. I cannot remember what else.
Without OCLP, the latest release of macOS that a 2015 MacBook Pro will run is Monterey (5 releases ago).
The final release of Monterey was July 2024. So no, it is not getting updates anymore. Worse, many programs require a newer release of macOS to run at all.
This is a perfect system to migrate to Linux. It will run faster, be more secure, and will have totally up-to-date software.
I got a laugh at the end as I have also experienced that the hardest part about converting parents to Linux is them not knowing their passwords.
The laws are entirely stupid (as in written by people that have no clue).
The ones I see do not make using a VPN illegal, they make it illegal for certain websites to receive traffic from VPNs.
As a website, how am I supposed to know if I am receiving traffic from a VPN?
I have to maintain a database of restricted IP addresses? How do I keep that up-to-date? How do I catch small players? Self-hosted stuff?
And even if I do all that, how do I tell where the actual user is? Because that is exactly what VPNs were designed to hide from me. So, I cannot apply it to residents of a state—I have to refuse VPN connections from the entire world.
It is impossible and pointless. Anybody actually doing anything wrong will get around it easily. So all it accomplishes is reducing the security and increasing the hassle for everybody else.
Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.
I agree with you on the “stability” of frequent small changes vs infrequent huge ones (release upgrades on distros like Debian, Ubuntu, or Fedora).
However, I have had multiple Arch installs where I have not used the system for multiple years (eg. old laptops, dormant VMs). Other than having to know how to update the keyring to get current GPG keys, Arch has always upgraded flawlessly for me. I have had upgrades that downloaded close to 3 GB all at once with a single pacman command (or maybe yay) that “just worked”.
Wayland is a great example.
Debian user? You may have spent the last two years complaining that Wayland is not ready, that NVIDIA does not work, and that Wayland is too focussed on GNOME. You may move to XFCE if GNOME removes X11 support.
Arch user? Wayland is great and Plasma 6 works flawlessly. There have not been any real NVIDIA problems in a year or two. Maybe you have been enjoying COSMIC, Hyprland, or Niri.
This is me talking out of my ass a but since I do not do it, but you can create your own AUR packages pretty easily. If you have the Deb, you could be rocking it in Arch too.
On Chimera Linux, I do make my own packages. Just so easy.
In the AUR maybe. I certainly have had to trim lots of old electron and other bloat.
My favourite package manager is APK 3. No clean-up required there almost by definition.
Because it is less trouble.
I read comments here all the time. People say Linux does not work with the Wifi on their Macs. Works with mine I say. Wayland does not work and lacks this feature or this and this. What software versions are you using I wonder, it has been fixed for me for ages.
Or how about missing software. Am I downloading tarballs to compile myself? No. Am I finding some random PPA? No. Is that PPA conflicting with a PPA I installed last year? No. Am I fighting the sandboxing on Flatpak? No. M I install everything on my system through the package manager.
Am I trying to do development and discovering that I need newer libraries than my distro ships? No. Am I installing newer software and breaking my package manager? No.
Is my system an unstable house of cards because of all the ways I have had to work around the limitations of my distro? No.
When I read about new software with new features, am I trying it out on my system in a couple days. Yes.
After using Arch, everything else just seems so complicated, limited, and frankly unstable.
I have no idea why people think it is harder. To install maybe. If that is your issue, use EndeavourOS.
We disagree and you have not addressed my points. So let me stress them.
Again, totally agree. Under a permissive license , they do not have to share their work if they do not want to.
How? We both have access to the exact same code. We can license our modifications as we wish including GPL or proprietary. They can do the same. We mutually benefit when we choose the original license.
As I have pointed out elsewhere, permissive licenses tend to attract more corporate contribution (and collaboration between corporations). That benefits me a lot.
Google probably has an “extended” version of Clang internally. That is ok with me. I enjoy the substantial code that they do share with me. Same with Microsoft and Apple that collaborate in the same project. I enjoy innovations like Rust and Zig that get built on top. I enjoy FreeBSD that uses it and my main distro Chimera Linux that uses it as well.
I seem to benefit quite a lot.
Hard to know how to respond here. Corporations can use you code under any Open Source license, including copyleft (GPL). They do not get one line extra from you because it is permissively licensed.
I guess I will say “pikachu face” when corporations realize that I can take their permissive code and use it for free for any purpose or even compete directly against them! And I can combine their code with any code I want including proprietary and GPL! And I I think preventing this kind of thing is the main reason Red Hat likes the GPL (you know, the biggest Open Source corporation).
How? Real question. How is that statement accurate?
You put time and effort into advancing an Open Source project. All of that code is still there. It can be modified, studied, enhanced, and shared. What code is available to you and what you can do with it is entirely unchanged when a corporation adds proprietary code on top of it. You have not gained their code, true. But you have not lost yours. And you can keep anything they gave you previously (or in the future). Nothing has been lost.
And it does. All “4 freedoms” for example. Permissive or copyleft the same.
Ah. Ok. Ya, permissive licenses don’t do that. It sounds like you will prefer copyleft licenses if this is something you want. Fine of course. But it has nothing to do with your other points. As I said, I fully support the idea of copyleft licenses. You should be free to license your work as you wish.
Do what you want. That is not what everybody wants though. I hope you can respect that.
Well, if that is what they are going to do, thank God they did not contribute the enshitification to the Open Source repos. We can go on using the Open Source version because it is better and we like the freedom. Sounds like a point in favour of permissive licenses to me.
How does this happen unless their version is better? And how is it better unless it is their changes that made it better?
It sounds like what we are really upset about is companies making better software than us and not letting us use it. That sounds like the exact opposite of what you are trying to say happens.
But again, nobody can take the Open Source away. It is still there untarnished. It may not be enhanced by their efforts but it is not harmed either.
What you are saying is, if they extend the Open Source software, you do not want the Open Source version anymore. You only want theirs. Because only when you use theirs do you lose any freedom. That is true collectively for “the community”.
Finally. We agree.