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).
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.
historic EEE tactics re-emerging
Those tactics never disappeared, they just hide it better nowadays.
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://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.
Exactly. At this point I think it’s practically impossible to change the license
no geeks or Linux developers left in the Board (it’s just ‘suits’ and corporate actors)
what could possibly go wrong?
It’s not like the foundation has any technical say in the kernel.
That’s the funny part, they exists just for show.
Well the Foundation does employ Linus and Greg, so it’s not just entirely for the show. They paychecks are real (I hope!)
Sorry for the ignorance, but who has the technical say then?
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
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.
Good to know!
Rings of trust, with torvalds at center.
But they can single handedly ruin even the best technical innovations.
Can anybody push back against the embrace?
Nobody has the fortitude to turn down a check with big numbers on it. So, no.
Be irrelevant or embraced. That are the options.
Linux Foundation has always been an industry consortium and not a community. LF has practically no relevance.
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”.
Software is put into the “care” of LF to die. LF does not steer Linux in any way.
Once you take money from someone, you are beholden to them. Applies in business, politics, and FOSS.
Since Microsoft basically sponsors them I wonder why this didn’t happen earlier.
Please do now upvote techrights.org - they use hyperbolic tones and produce clickbait.
deleted by creator
I know that the Linux Foundation exists to support and standardize Linux, but does it have any actual authority over it or the kernel?
I mean, I guess I’m just surprised it’s Microsoft taking over the foundation and not IBM.
Okay somebody quickly code up a free alternative to Linux
GNU’s Hurd was supposed to be this iirc. That clearly hasn’t gotten far and hasn’t been progressing quickly.
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.
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.
