MIT license :|
“Please exploit me senpai! "
I think the MIT license is fine for a lot of things, but the kernel isn’t one of them. It’s probably alright if it just stays a small toy kernel though.
Also, it says to look at
LICENSEfor more info, but there is noLICENSElol.How dare someone make something available to everyone in a way I personally disagree with
In a way that weakens the open source software world by giving companies a way to avoid the GPL license of linux.
For really no reason, this project gains nothing from being MIT instead of GPL.Does it really weaken the entire open source software world? Is anyone actually going to use this instead of the Linux kernel? Is anyone then actually going to modify it in a way that they would have upstreamed to Linux had they used that? Odds are slim, aren’t they.
AND! It’s not your damn project! Run your shit how you want to. Live and let live. Linux isn’t going anywhere.
Is anyone actually going to use this instead of the Linux kernel?
Google’s been trying alternatives and the progressive de-FOSS-ing of AOSP should be telling enough.
I’m sure Linux and any other GPL kernels and the entire open source world are immeasurably ruined by LittleKernel - apparently running in “billions of bootloaders” and mainly contributed to by someone whose GitHub organisation is “@google” and who authors commits during working hours - existing.
Would anyone have continued to use windows without a TCP/IP stack of their own till the mid 2000? Apple?
Inarguably in the face of the growing ubiquity of the Internet. Ms and Apple being able to just swipe the BSD stacks, giving little to nothing back. Definitely didn’t help. Which isn’t even considering what adoption *nix systems might have seen. Had Microsoft not only missed early adoption. But then struggled to implement a decent stack at the same time.
Had it not been for it’s license and the court battle at the time. There likely would be no Linux and we’d have all been running BSD based systems for decades now.
Wasn’t it the fact that Windows included TCP/IP that led to the consolidation of networking around TCP/IP out of dozens of alternative protocols?
This discussion isn’t meaningful without an account of how much proprietary contribution there has been to the Linux (or other GPL) network stacks. In any case, somehow BSD survived.
And none of this alters the fact that whinging about other people’s choice of software license is entitled as fuck.
No. Not really. Microsoft also included token ring networking and multiple others. Now however, most people would think you were a pothead if you mentioned token ring.
Before Microsoft adopted the MIT licensed BSD stack. There were small and large alternatives. Novel netware being a huge one on the corporate side. For both Mac and PC. When I went to school for network management, we learned netware.
AT&T had much much more influence on it’s adoption. By the 90s, if you were procuring network infrastructure, it was generally Ethernet and TCP IP. Microsoft supported it in lan manager and NT. It was also an option for Windows 3.11 and 95. But Microsoft didn’t even ship it as a base part of their home operating system until Windows 98. Even Apple beat them on that technicality.
There has arguably been much more commercial support proprietary and otherwise of GPL than MIT licensed software. Not even close. Sony, Apple and a ton of big companies use BSD or MIT licensed code. You could do pages and pages. A practical who’s who of the tech industry as to who has borrowed MIT code. The ones that contributed back wouldn’t hardly justify a footnote. Most GPL projects, especially the big ones, have pages listing many, many corporate sponsorships and supporters, not just the Linux kernel.
I never judged anyone for their license choice. Use the unlicense for all I care. But those sort of licenses as a rule don’t generate much actual support or contribution back.
deleted by creator
Why?
This is getting downvoted but honestly, “why?” This is a good question. Too few people understand why GPL licensing is important.
A working “Linux” fork with a “do whatever you want we don’t care” license means that people can just take the code without ever attributing credit or contributing back. They can make their own proprietary kernels from this and dispense from the free and open source part. They would also be free to commercialize the software without restrictions and impunity. As it stands GPL3 in particular is restrictive enough to be considered “bad for business” but it’s also the only license that actually protects free software in court
I know exactly who and why, which is why I asked the question in the first place 🤣🤣🤣
Sorry I don’t get it. It just felt like a reasonable question to me
“Rust People”
Aaaaaah right
Just to spite you.
This is my favorite reason
Why wake up in the morning, why take the next breath, why bask in the summers light. Beauty comes all around us if only we look
