Summary: The Linux Foundation is gradually becoming a shadow of Microsoft, just like the Open Source Initiative, where most of the money comes from Microsoft and the official blog promotes Microsoft, its proprietary software, and Microsoft’s side in a class action lawsuit over GPL violations (with 9 billion dollars in damages at stake).

  • Muddybulldog@mylemmy.win
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    While I’m as concerned about historic EEE tactics re-emerging, I’m as equally concerned about FUD. The statement “but could not change the license of Linux, only pressure Linus Torvalds to reject GPLv3 after a campaign of lobbying” is just such a statement. Linus always had personal reservations regarding GPLv3 but that’s beside the point. LINUX is licensed as GPLv2 and lacks the “or later” clause of many projects. It cannot be relicensed as GPLv3 without ALL contributors re-licensing their individual contributions.

    • mo_ztt ✅@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Right, this source is just weird. The story is 100% real, and honestly probably a problem to the extent that Microsoft and the Linux Foundation are even relevant anymore, but everything in this is told in this hyperbolic style that makes it hard to even make sense of.

      just like the Open Source Initiative, where most of the money comes from Microsoft

      Is this true? This doesn’t sound true.

      and the official blog promotes Microsoft, its proprietary software, and Microsoft’s side

      https://blog.opensource.org/

      https://www.linuxfoundation.org/blog

      What is this even talking about? Where does whichever of these blogs this is talking about promote Microsoft’s proprietary software?

      in a class action lawsuit over GPL violations (with 9 billion dollars in damages at stake).

      I was really curious because I hadn’t heard of this. It turns out it’s the Github Copilot lawsuit. I could be wrong, but I’ve looked and I couldn’t find this $9 billion number anywhere else; it sounds like it’s arrived at by simply assuming that 1% of code that Copilot produces is infringing, and computing DMCA damages based on that 1%. It’s not really clear to me whether that argument was just an illustrative example of the scope of the problem, or whether they’re actually asking for $9 billion, but I tend to assume the former. In other venues when the litigants have been asked what remedy they want, they’ve said things like, “We’d like to see them train their AI in a manner which respects the licenses and provides attribution,” as opposed to “we want $9 billion.”

      Etc etc. I picked out a little excerpt, but the whole article is written like this which makes me look at it sideways.

  • heeplr@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    no geeks or Linux developers left in the Board (it’s just ‘suits’ and corporate actors)

    what could possibly go wrong?

        • 0xtero@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well the Foundation does employ Linus and Greg, so it’s not just entirely for the show. They paychecks are real (I hope!)

        • The Cuuuuube@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Linus Torvalds acts as dictator for life. The problem is, and this is what Vim is currently grappling with, what happens when your open source software project with a dictator for life nears end of life? One might assume the Linux foundation becomes the new governance structure. That certainly seems to be what some people think Microsoft is banking on.

          Here’s my prediction: three kernals will arise competing for who gets to be the continuation of Linux. One by the current Linux foundation, one by a current individual contributor to the kernal, and one by a new organization founded to be a grass roots development effort of Linux. Following this fracturing, another existing project will gain prominence as an alternative kernal. Maybe that’s FreeBSD, maybe that’s Redox, I don’t know. The point is the fracturing of no one knowing what the canonical Linux kernel they should be contributing to will give another kernel an opportunity to gain new users and contributors. The most likely winners are whatever new continuation project I described are, or the alternative kernel that already exists

          • TheTrueLinuxDev@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Thing is, there is a line of succession for Linux Kernel, Linus is more of a Q/A manager for determining whether to merge code or not, and they most likely never yield to Linux Foundation, because why the hell would they want to let some corpo suits tell them what to do especially if they don’t have the technical literacy to do the job in the first place? If corpo try to meddle with the development process of Linux Kernel into something of a hostile environment, then developers of Linux would just fork off and spin off their own version right there and then.

  • woelkchen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    Linux Foundation has always been an industry consortium and not a community. LF has practically no relevance.

    • wiki_me@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      They have a revenue of 139 million in 2021, so they have some relevance, but yeah i would try not to put too much trust in them, and try to put in funding to the linux ecosystem that is “cleaner”.

  • rebul@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Once you take money from someone, you are beholden to them. Applies in business, politics, and FOSS.

  • AshenPaladin@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I know that the Linux Foundation exists to support and standardize Linux, but does it have any actual authority over it or the kernel?

    • Syphist@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      GNU’s Hurd was supposed to be this iirc. That clearly hasn’t gotten far and hasn’t been progressing quickly.

      • YMS@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        GNU Hurd development was started in 1990 as a follow-up project of another, failed GNU kernel from years before. Linus Torvalds didn’t start Linux development before April 1991.

    • Lengsel
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      OpenBSD, and FreeBSD are 2 excellent operating systems. Zero closed source bits in the kernel or system files.

      BSD does not do distributions, each one is their own operating sysyem with their own developers, different source code for each.