Comment by betterunix | Hacker News Reader

Comment by betterunix | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

"Just one example: Linux (a) dominates the Internet's servers and (b) is open-source."

...and untold millions of lines of changes to the Linux kernel are kept secret and are not at all available to other Linux users or even to Linux contributors. That is exactly the sort of the thing the GPL was meant to prevent.

Furthermore, while it is true that quite a bit of web services and "cloud computing" was built with free software, the effect is very different than distributing free software on desktops. If you do not like some new feature of the Linux kernel, you can just not use it -- nobody forces you to upgrade, and in extreme cases it is possible to fork the project. On the other hand, if you do not like a new feature in Facebook...tough luck, you have no authority. Similarly, if you want a new feature in the Linux kernel, you can add it -- maybe Linus won't merge it with the official source, but you can still have the feature and distribute it to others. Your next great idea for a GMail feature is irrelevant, because you cannot add features to GMail.

> ...and untold millions of lines of changes to the Linux kernel are kept secret ...

Are you serious? The entire Linux kernel is open-source and public (and it is available here: https://www.kernel.org/). Most programs delivered along with the kernel are also open-source. Many Linux distributors of large assemblages of code refuse to include anything that isn't open-source.

You are ignoring the long list of companies that modify the Linux kernel for their own purposes, never releasing their changes, and sometimes using their modified kernel on a web server that runs web apps for their users. As long as they are not distributing their modified kernel to anyone they can keep their changes secret.

If the GPL was, as you claim, meant to keep that from happening, why is it totally permissible by the GPL?

For the same reason the GPLv2 has nothing to say about patents, even though patents are used to do the kinds of things the GPL was meant to prevent.

The thing to keep in mind is that the changes that web companies make to free software are not usually for internal consumption. The changes are user-facing -- but the software is delivered via the web, rather than distributed to the users, and so the web company never triggers any requirement to make their changes available. The GPL does allow this, but it is not in the spirit of the GPL, and the Affero GPL was created to deal with this problem.

I'm not sure that's true (I'm not the most knowledgeable person when it comes to the exact specifics of the GPL). Without institutions protecting IP (like patents, trademarks, copyright) the GPL couldn't exist, it's just a hack on top of IP.

I agree that it's not in the spirit of the GPL, but they did explicitly not add in sections about that in the GPLv3. The v2 FAQ mentioned that they were considering adding in web-based applications, but the v3 FAQ says it's still okay, but if you're writing software and want to make it not okay, use the AGPL.

> You are ignoring the long list of companies that modify the Linux kernel for their own purposes ...

No, I'm addressing your prior claim that the Linux kernel is not open-source. The claim is false.

Also, companies that change the kernel, and then release their changed kernels, cannot do so without also releasing their source.

The claim is false, in whatever form it takes.

I never claimed that, read my post again.

> I never claimed that, read my post again.

I did. Here is what you said:

> ...and untold millions of lines of changes to the Linux kernel are kept secret and are not at all available to other Linux users or even to Linux contributors. That is exactly the sort of the thing the GPL was meant to prevent.

It's false. Code that is modified and then never released is not what the GPL was meant to prevent.

It is not false in the context of the web being built on free software. The GPL is meant to prevent a situation where free software is used to create proprietary software that denies its users their freedom. In the case of web companies modifying free software and presenting their modified software to users as a web app, that is exactly what happens, and it is only because of a loophole that it does happen. The Affero GPL was created to address this particular loophole.

Along with the point you've just made, I thought about this after my last post, related to the difference between a tablet and the cloud. If a company changes the Linux kernel or an open-source application and includes it in their mobile device, they have to release the source on demand. As intended. (And there have been a number of high-profile cases in which companies tried to avoid releasing source.)

But if they change the Linux kernel or an open-source server utility and put it on their cloud server, they don't. An unintended outcome, and one that makes the cloud different than what came before it.

So I concede that the cloud is different, and it does affect the idea of open-source.

The line is drawn if and when a client machine downloads an open-source app from the cloud. If that never happens, then there's no requirement to release source.

> ...and untold millions of lines of changes to the Linux kernel are kept secret and are not at all available to other Linux users or even to Linux contributors

Kept secret by whom?

By the people who made the changes but never had to release them, by NDAs that people sign before they work for web companies, etc. There is nothing in the GPLv2 that says, "All your changes must be released." What it says is that if you give a modified version to another person, your changes must be GPL'd also. Since web companies do not give modified versions of the kernel to others, they are not in any way obligated to make their changes available to others, and more often than not they do not make those changes available.

> By the people who made the changes but never had to release them, by NDAs that people sign before they work for web companies, etc.

This is complete nonsense. There is no proprietary, closed-source code in the Linux kernel.

Remember, recipients of GPL code (companies in this case) are not affected by the terms of the GPL until they redistribute the code themselves, until then they can add proprietary code all they want, run it on servers and never release a thing. They are completely free to USE the code however they wish.

So in this example, no cloud company has to release changes to their running linux kernel because it was never distributed to end users, or at all.

Same for all other GPL code running on servers, users of the service, loading web pages and using APIs, are not recipients of the code under the GPL, so they have no rights under the license.

If some company decides their changes to the kernel, or nginx, or apache, or php can be released because it won't destroy their business, they frequently do so. Otherwise you'll never hear about it and changes silently remain secret.

No, there is no proprietary code in the official kernel as distributed on kernel.org. There is a very long list of companies that have their own version of the kernel, which they keep to themselves, which contains their own proprietary changes, and which they never distribute to anyone else. There is no requirement whatsoever that you give your changes to Linux to anyone, there is only a requirement that your changes be GPL'd if you do choose to distribute them.

Feel free to change the subject, but don't pretend you're addressing the original topic, which is whether the Linux kernel is or is not open-source.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com