this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2024
99 points (76.8% liked)

Linux

48222 readers
797 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
99
submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by Moorshou@lemmy.zip to c/linux@lemmy.ml
 

I was curious what the Linux people think about Microsoft and any bad practices that most people should know about already?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] scratchandgame@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

(A)GPL restrict the modification of the software. I'm sharing an example how that restriction works.

[–] BaumGeist@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

How does it restrict modifying the software?

[–] scratchandgame@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It requires any modifications to be under GPL.

And it also requires anything that incorporate GPL codes also be under GPL.

And the code must be published to the copyright holder as far as I know.

How it harms the end user are described.

[–] BaumGeist@lemmy.ml 0 points 5 months ago

While I'm not gonna argue the merits of GPL—it is technically restricting modification, even if there is no practical difference for those only interested in adding/removing functionality—I disagree with the assessment that using the GPL causes harm to the users.

The reasoning seems to be that a 3rd party's refusal to use the software because of the license, and suvsequent use of a shittier product is somehow the (hypothetical GPL-using) OpenSSH dev's fault.

The problem is that accepting the premise that the devs are responsible for what people who choose to not use their software do entails that they are then responsible for everyone who uses any type of software tangentially related to OpenSSH's functionality. It also means that it's their fault for whatever consequences of using the licenses they currently do, which inevitably drive some people away for various reasons. It also means any potential license (or even lack thereof) is open to the same criticism.