So, we finally see IBM showing its ugly face. No more CentOS.
The cognitive dissonance in assuming every acquisition of a smaller company by a bigger one immediately results in the collapse of said small company is unreal.
There's a very good possibility that Linux wouldn't have had the impact that it has had absent IBM's investments in the early 2000s. It's not an "open source company" but it has significant investments in open source.
To quote that page "Once customers upgrade to IBM?s product it is often too late to negotiate and avoid hefty licensing charges associated with changed licensing metrics? "
then again, I see open source slowly but steadily losing ground. and if open source has a tough time. free software has it even worse.
Turns out not compromising your principals and being zealots works.
A lot of OSS development is now done by companies who don't care that much about the software, because their revenue is totally independent. Netflix, Uber, Microsoft, etc.
Or it's open-core like Redis and Gitlab, with paid proprietary bits. Or "open source" with anti-service-provider licenses like MongoDB, Elastic, Redis.
I thought copyleft licensing has been steadily losing share to permissive licensing for a long time, with no end in sight. Can you point to information indicating otherwise?
The Linux kernel itself keeps going from success to success, but that seems to be the last major copyleft bastion, and they also somewhat famously rejected GPLv3.
From Linus[1] on the topic of GPLv3, he chose GPLv2 as it was the best choice for doing kernel development - giving code and getting code back in return. One of his gripes about GPLv3, IIRC, was the 'Tivoization'[2] additions. He felt it was going too far the other way.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization
Here's something I wrote at the time: https://www.cnet.com/news/linux-to-gplv3-a-practical-matter-...