this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2026
103 points (97.2% liked)
Linux
67510 readers
348 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 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Not good enough. Companies are still allowed to use this software freely, make massive profits without anything going to the developer. It is truly free labor.
They are even allowed to modify it, even make derivative work, without open sourcing it, as long as they don't distribute said derivative work.
How about
https://anticapitalist.software/
I haven't looked into it, but I will. My only worry is that it will discourage many people from it due to political biases against the naming.
i am not a lawyer, but isn't that similar to gpl?
also, why should the company's profit go to a developer they don't employ?
That is correct. GPL has the same problem.
I dont agree with the idea that paying non-employees is a foreign concept. Many companies pay, for example, Adobe for Adobe suite software, or Google for Google suite software, despite not hiring them as employees. They pay rent to property owners despite not hiring them as employees. The idea that only employees must be paid is unfounded.
Now, to answer "why should they pay them", well, in exchange for their labor.
open source is free, as in freedom. you want an open source license that:
You're using "open source" as defined by OSI. Just wanted to note that open source historically arose in protest to the corporate walled gardens that dominated the software ecosystem, rather than a movement to give companies a large eco-system of free-to-use software for profit. It was about individuals having access.
But I am not going to argue that what I am proposing is open source. I will accept that open source as a term has already been coopted to serve corporations.
It would only apply to for-profit entities. It would be extremely difficult to enforce on an individual level anyways, and it would disagree with the spirit here.
I called that profit sharing earlier, but you can call it that too, sure.
And who literally gave the work away without asking for payment, for anyone to use freely?
Like, do we want free software or not? We can't have it both ways
i think you might be responding to the wrong comment ❤️
Not sure why you'd think that, I'm agreeing with you, though I'm referencing context from the post you were replying to... We can't have free software while demanding it be denied to some, that's the very antithesis of "free" (as in freedom). OOP seems to think companies should be denied access to software that was developed and distributed freely when that was literally the intent those developers had when they placed a free license on it. You seemed to disagree, and I was adding to that... At least that was my intent, if it didn't come across that way then I apologize