Hacker News Reader

Comment by arca_vorago | Hacker News Reader

I thought google would do something like this. They didn't want to fully embrace linux so they locked all the freedom of linux away behind restrictrions in android until they had a replacement and now they are going to try to drop gnu+linux anything GPL they can...

The new kernel is MIT/BSD... Welcome to Tivoization all over again.

I get the need for a better kernel, the gnu+linux kernel is out of control at over 14mil+loc, but why not put that effort into making a minix3 style microkernel that's gpl, or fix hurd?

I wish people understood the dangers of BSD style licenses, I hope this fails, the last thing we need is another proprietary OS on a device they built on the backs of the FOSS community but doesn't give back in a meaningful way.

We don't need another OSX, or android apps on your PC, we need someone with the money and will to fix the future of GNU!

View on HN

> the last thing we need is another proprietary OS on a device they built on the backs of the FOSS community

If Google builds this kernel from the ground up and chooses to license it MIT, how is any binary derived from that "built on the backs of the FOSS community?"

They would likely keep a lot of the gnu userland. Let's not forget that google themselves are built on the backs of the FOSS community, without FOSS there might not be a google at all, certainly not an android.

They would likely keep a lot of the gnu userland.

There's nothing to keep, Android already doesn't use the GNU userland. They built their own libc (bionic) and the commands are all using busybox, IIRC.

because the android system was built off the labour of the Linux community.

I don't understand the dangers of BSD style licenses, can you expand on that a bit please?

The "danger" is BSD licenses are highly permissive, you can take BSD licensed software, modify it and sell it and never return the changes to the community or release the source to customers.

This means all the work of the OSS community is 'free' for corporations to take.

Coders are not idiots, they know that possibility and still use the license for their open source code. So, "danger" is a silly word to describe this.

So basically, if you make some improvements to something, you get to control those improvements. What a horrible idea that is.

Note: this is clearly sarcasm, and it pains me that I need to put this here, but some won't get it.

Considering it doesn't sustain the free software you needed to improve in the first place, yes, that is a terrible idea.

Eh you are not losing control with GPL. If you choose not to contribute back (when using a non copy left license), you are choosing to not provide control to anyone else.

This is a pretty simplistic explanation, but the BSD license doesn't require you to provide the source to customers. Essentially the argument is that companies will consume FOSS software without contributing back improvements to the determent of the community.

Isn't that really the norm now with hosted applications, if I patch nginx on my server there is no obligation to create a pull request.

It is the norm because most FOSS is not licensed under the AGPL.

In any case, even AGPL does not require you to create a pull request, you only have to make the source available to your users, i.e. everyone who connects to your patched server.

The danger is that it can return to closed source at any time.

This is true for GPL too if the copyright holders (authors or rights holders if signed over) decide to relicense. It has happened many times before. An example would be Nessus.

This wouldn't retroactively change already released code however.

Only the copyright holder can turn a FOSS project non-FOSS. This is true even for the strictest of copyleft licenses (and in fact has happened before).

"The new kernel is MIT/BSD... Welcome to Tivoization all over again."

1) Linux doesn't prevent tivoization, either; it uses the GPLv2, whereas anti-tivoization language was introduced in the GPLv3.

2) If Google wanted to make this proprietary, they could've made this proprietary. Why bother releasing it under an absurdly-permissive license if they wanted it to be proprietary?

"I wish people understood the dangers of BSD style licenses"

I wish people understood the dangers of copyleft licenses, particularly strict ones. The same exact rules preventing reuse in proprietary products apply to other FOSS projects as well. The GPL's "compatibility" with other FOSS licenses is a one-way street.

BSD-style licenses are literally as free as you can get (short of a license that's functionally equivalent to a public domain dedication). Any other license adds restrictions and reduces freedoms. Absolutely nothing about this project indicates "proprietary"; the license choice indicates the exact opposite.

I would wager that the majority of those sloc are not compiled into the typical Android kernel, though.

Right. And we have tools like git which are able to handle large codebases. People shouldn't conflate high LoC counts with bloat.

Even if someone with the money and will somehow wanted to sponsor the development of GNU, why would that fix it? The same story will just play out again.

If you want this fixed, get someone with the money and the will to end the copyrightability of software. Or find a different solution to let users have control over their computing even when they don't have control over the OS - there's no fundamental reason why this should require legal solutions, as opposed to, say, cryptographic ones.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com