Linux

59681 readers

704 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
No misinformation
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 6 years ago

MODERATORS

AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml

nooter692@lemmy.ml

MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml

cypherpunks@lemmy.ml

cyclohexane@lemmy.ml

d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz

317

Open Source Developers Are Exhausted, Unpaid, and Ready to Walk Away (itsfoss.com)

submitted 2 days ago by petsoi@discuss.tchncs.de to c/linux@lemmy.ml

38 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] TMP_NKcYUEoM7kXg4qYe@lemmy.world 15 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It does not. It pledges source-available software as a better alternative to FOSS. So it by definition is not about FOSS devs. (I've only read part of the article because I oppose the opinions they share, so maybe it talks about FOSS devs in the part I have not read.)

[–] T0RB1T@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I noticed them talking about one of their softwares being licensed under FSL, not having heard of it, I looked it up and...

https://fsl.software/

They kinda lost me at

What about AGPLv3 though? AGPLv3 is not permissive enough.

However, in the original article, this section definitely had me thinking. I thoroughly agree with the author's stance on this, and I wonder if their alternatives will actually solve the problem.

As the former VP of Community at Discourse (GPLv2) I spent half a decade participating in the making of certifiably Free, Open Source Software that got put to use by literal nazis to amplify their organized hate, and all we had to say for ourselves was "well, the license says free for everyone".

It makes me think of """Truth"" Social" using Mastodon code, and illegally at that. I guess... at a certain point if a bad actor is gonna be bad... Will a license stop them? I'm unconvinced that AGPL isn't enough, but I could still be won over.

So long as my freedoms as a regular individual are maintained with the software that I use and love (my primary concern is some megacorp enshittifier being able to just take the stuff I use on the daily) then I'm open to new licensing schemes. I could be won over.

[–] TMP_NKcYUEoM7kXg4qYe@lemmy.world 2 points 21 hours ago

I'm not very educated on the Fair Source stuff but the idea is that you create source available software which will after some time become Open Source. So I guess their idea is that if you use AGPL, people cannot do that. AGPL means nobody else can make Fair Source software from your work. AGPL is a good license, it just does not work with their

[new software] -> [source available] -> [FOSS after a while] -> [new software made from the now FOSS software]

loop.