this post was submitted on 20 Dec 2023
65 points (100.0% liked)

Linux

48208 readers
1349 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

Related Communities

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

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] chameleon@kbin.social 14 points 11 months ago (3 children)

No, it comes together with a CLA being required to contribute. In other words, Canonical (and only Canonical) is still allowed to sell exceptions to the AGPL.

Yes, the post says there is no copyright assignment. That's extremely carefully chosen wording to avoid mention of the CLA which was made required in the same commit as the license change. It's "just" a super extended license that lets them do whatever, not assignment.

[–] fossphi@lemm.ee 3 points 11 months ago

Quite the same case as with matrix. I very much prefer AGPL over all the other permissive licences, but I don't know, the CLA leaves a bad taste in the mouth

[–] Goun@lemmy.ml 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Can somebody explain in a few words what's CLA? Does it limit contributors rights?

[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You sign over your copyright on your contributions to the project.

[–] Goun@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 months ago

Shit that's awful, so they could theorically change the lisence to whatever they want at any time

[–] QuazarOmega@lemy.lol 1 points 11 months ago

I tried reading through it and I don't understand completely if they reserve the right to relicense in a way that is against the interest of contributor.
They say that the contributor retains the copyright and can do whatever they want with the code they contributed, which is good, they also say that they can sublicense your contributions, which, as far as I know, means they couldn't make it more permissive, but only more restrictive, at least that is the case with Creative Commons