Maybe change the license is good choice (such as GPLv3) #5
Comments
|
|
sounds bs |
|
The software license is a controversial topic and AFAIK it often depends on the author's preference so sadly we'll never be able to decide unanimously. Kerla is dual-licensed under Apache 2.0 and MIT because I thought it'll be troublesome to choose GPL from the point of view of the interoperability with Rust and major third-party libraries used in Kerla (log, hashbrown, bitflags, ...). I do know the benefits and good influence of GPL but for now I'd stick with Apache 2.0 / MIT. |
|
I actually find more willingness to collaborate on software with such non-restrictive licenses than on GPL, especially GPLv3 which was banned from use (in customer facing code) in practically all companies I worked for. For corporations willing to protect their IP with patents GPLv3 can be a trap - no corporate lawyers allow their people to fall into such trap, unless they really working on the open source project. |
|
@mdtrooper Why GPLv3 and not GPLv2? GPLv3 is incompatible with Linux. Or why not LGPL?
It's not a problem. It's a feature. Sometimes companies like to offer a GPL version and a commercial version. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ |
|
@nuta If you really care about Linux you wouldn't be using a permissive license, because now a proprietary software company could swap the kernel without opening up their devices, which means more software needs to be reverse engineered in order to work with the Linux kernel. I would suggest GPLv2 since the Linux kernel is licensed under that license and GPLv2 and GPLv3 are not compatible |
|
I would love to see this as GPLv3! License compatibility with GPLv2 doesn't really matter if this project doesn't plan to distribute Linux code, and given that this is a rewrite in a language other than C, I think that isn't planned. GPLv3 maximizes user freedoms. GPLv2 falls short (see: the use of Linux in Android), and permissive licenses are miles behind (see: iOS, the Playstation OS, Windows, etc.) |
|
@Zambito1 writes:
Can you explain being miles behind in a simpler manner, please? If we speak about permissive strategy, I know only one license which for me looks De-jure better than Apache 2.0 (and esp. better than MIT/BSD). It's Blue Oak Model license: https://writing.kemitchell.com/2019/03/09/Deprecation-Notice.html |
Anything (MIT, Apache, BSD) is better than Gulag Public License. |
14 days account vs 12 year old account 🤔 Upvoting troll comments like:
🤔 Surely he's not here to start flamewars... |
Is that all you're capable of? Unlike you I only downvote troll comments. You downvote every comment that disagrees with you |
|
Can you all stop feeding the troll? Does anyone has power to ban him from comments? The spam it produces in this interesting topic is annoying. |
Sure. Really the biggest difference between permissive licenses and copyleft licenses (such as the GPL) is that permissive licenses allow for proprietary distributions. This means that the biggest reason to prefer a permissive license over a copyleft license, is to enable use in proprietary software. The examples I listed are popular pieces of software which are derivatives of permissively licensed software. Proprietary software is very frequently abusive toward its users (for those not familiar with the topic, this page has many examples https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/). Permissive software, while usually not abusive directly, magnifies the ability to produce proprietary software, and thus the injustices along with it. By licensing this software permissively, if it gains enough compatibility with Linux, perhaps Android device manufacturers may take notice. They could make a fully proprietary Android by replacing Linux with Kerla. Android devices are often bad for user freedom because of locked bootloaders, no access to the root account, and proprietary user space software. A proprietary kernel would be the final nail in the coffin such that the user would not even be able to know what their kernel is doing (let alone change what it's doing). Using a copyleft license will ensure that Kerla is not used to abuse users in ways that proprietary software so frequently does. Edit: removed redundant word |
Hmm, while not too fussed personally, since there are good sides to permissive licenses aswell ...Wasn't Linus responded to with advise saying that it's possible to relicense via majority (as opposed to unanimous) I mean he didn't want to try that kind of vote but still wonder about it tbh 🤔 and would support GPLv3 if it did get put on table by maintainers and whatever company/org the CLA gives rights to that agrees to start such a vote. P.s. #IANAL |
|
Okay, I get the rules.
|
|
@lain-dono Isn't that just releasing the software to the public domain since thats what the license you linked suggests |
Could you actually give a reason why you think so instead of downvoting everyone who disagrees with you? |
|
@DodyAlkarkhi Strictly speaking, the WTFPL does not equal the public domain. |
|
Ultimately it's up to the author and community, I think it'd be best to get further along before worrying too much about licensing (any GPL fans could already create their own GPL fork if they want to invest more time in it afterall). However, as a cautionary tale, I recommend reading about Transgaming Cedega which was a proprietary fork of WINE back when that was under a permissive license. They extended it (e.g. with licensed copy protection support, since it was now all proprietary) and sold it for profit, whilst never contributing upstream, and this ultimately prompted WINE to relicense under the LGPL. Had Cedega been more successful we might not have the great FOSS WINE we have today (along with companies which do contribute upstream like Codeweavers Crossover and Valve's Proton with the new LPGL licensing). |
That's not exactly how things are working in the corporate world. In fact most companies heavily investing in the Linux Kernel violate license terms one way or another. Torvalds expressed why GPLv3 would be bad for Linux in the light of reality. And phones and set top boxes are continuously blocked against upgrading - it's bad for some users (not all), but it's the way to protect the IP and stay responsible for their devices - there's no will to sell hardware as open as PC and these companies sell experience, not equipment. They have to make money and that way they can pay for our work - far from ideal, but the world is not like the Stallman would like to see it.
There as stories of companies going rouge even with violating GPL, so it's matter of being evil or not - most Linux contributions aren't result of the GPL obligation, but the need to contribute and be part of something great. And in that world nVidia for example steers clear from any significant contribution, right? Then LGPL brings a little bit different situation to the table - it allows building proprietary software using LGPL as foundation, as long as that foundation isn't changed or changes are made public. This is gate to make money on combination of open software and closed software. And in the end there's option of dual licensing than worked well for many companies, including Qt - but you have to start as a business, that's not the case for Kerla, right? Going into GPLv3 would be a killer for any commercial interest in the project. I myself wouldn't be interested. |
|
Man I really love the MIT license. F them who think we should die of hunger writing free software for people and begging money from them like a cheap beggar. gnu/stallman is cancer. No-Gnu is the future. #ditch_gnu |
|
Reject Humanity, Embrace MIT |
|
First, I appreciate discussing software license here :) I know the free-rider problem occurs in this real world and don't want to see such a sad ending, but more than that, I don't want companies to avoid using Kerla in their production just because of its license. If a free-rider problem actually happens, let's consider the strategies then, e.g. write an attractive and essential plugin for Kerla licensed under GPL. By the way, please kindly keep in mind that you don't need to look down on licenses that are not suitable for you. Don't forget to respect each other. Posting a critique on an opinion (NOT on people) is OK, but please keep it constructive. |
|
Licensing is a hard thing to figure out for sure, especially given the conflicting opinions here. My personal opinion is that I'm all for the GPL as far as kernels are concerned, and personally won't contribute to one unless it's licensed as such. With that being said though, one thing about keeping it MIT/Apache2 for now is you can easily switch it to GPL later. Switching from GPL to MIT/Apache2 would require you to get the permission of everyone who's contributed (unless a CLA was signed giving you the rights). |
Can I ask why? There is nothing against commercial use in the GPL. |
|
I believe it's the right presentation explaining pretty well all obligations of the user of GPLv3 code: And I'll repeat again: All companies I worked for forbidden GPLv3 software on customer facing products. |
|
@michalfita I'll take the time to watch that presentation later today. However, complying with the GPLv3 is extremely easy. All you have to do is include a notice that the source is available under GPLv3 when distributing binaries, and provide the source on demand. The easiest way to do this is to make the source publicly available; perhaps by contributing it back upstream.
How many companies have you worked for where you produced Free Software (perhaps even permissively licensed)? If you only produced proprietary software at companies, that kind of proves my point that permissive licenses produce proprietary software. |
|
We haven't produced Free Software, @Zambito1, only commercial one with open source included.
They have to produce proprietary software to monetize their IP - it's actually very hard to monetize IP in form of open source. But if there are not even interested to look at GPLv3 licensed code, what chances are they're even consider contributing? As an example: as part of my job I fixed a small issue in curl. The licence didn't obligated us to contribute that fix back to the mainstream, but we did - I was allowed to do that as the fix hadn't been linked with the IP of the company I worked for; without the fix we couldn't deliver the feature. |
If they get for free, what they were supposed to paid for, there's no business then. A better idea might be - Go back home and chew a lollipop. |
Then you (or your employers) have been shooting yourself (/themselves) in the foot by avoiding GPL software. The GPL only activates when you distribute the software to others. If you are only running the software you write on your own computers, permissive licenses behave exactly the same as the GPL. However, the fact that you bring up tivoization prevention as a negative in this context makes me believe you think you own the computers after you sell them to your customer. I think this highlights exactly why permissive licenses should be avoided. Once you sell a computer, it is no longer your computer.
I hope you didn't get that from me. I don't care if anyone keeps changes to themselves; nor does the GPL. What I care about is having control over my own computer. The biggest reason to prefer a permissive license over a copyleft license, is for compatibility with a proprietary license. Proprietary licenses are antithetical to "control over my own computers". The GPL allows for proprietary forks, believe it or not. Companies are free to take GPL code, make changes, use it, and not tell anyone. What the GPL does not allow is the distribution of proprietary forks, so long as they remain proprietary. I think the distribution of proprietary forks would be unjust, because the proprietor would have more permission over the end users machine (in this case, at a kernel level), that they do not own. |
Because it's our computers?
You do realise there is something called disassembly? Also let me remind everyone that this is a guy that just wants to steal the code without contributing anything back because apparently the only way to make money is through stealing open source and make it proprietary. Like if you're a diehard proprietary software fan then write your own software from scratch. And now that I realise, he deleted the comment lol. Good thing I quoted it. Here it is:
|
I want to control my computer because I paid for it. You have to try to not understand that.
By making it "open source", it's already been approved. I don't care to control what other people do with their own computers. That's not my business, nor should it be yours. |
|
Thats really ironic. i'm just stating facts. You on the other hand react to facts like a 4y/o |
There's a reason you deleted it lol. I knew you were going to come up with that excuse |
I'm talking about your reasoning "You're jealous i make money and you don't". Exactly how a 4y/o would react |
I love how you instantly change the topic when I quote your reasoning for wanting a permissive license. Then you accuse me of lying and then go to your 4y/o insults. |
lol ask @mdtrooper and @kleinph. We know your company wont last long when we expose your github history to your customers |
they were the ones upvoting me and downvoting you. You straight up lie and claim you're innocent. It doesn't take long to realise who I were talking to in the comments. You deleting the comment straight after makes it even more suspicious. |
Again you're going on circles. I don't have the comment since you deleted it but it doesn't take long to realise who I were talking to here:
...
|
|
And you purposefully ignore the second screenshot? Yeah keep denying |
|
what? |
|
Could you be more clear since your comment seems like some kind of damage control lol |
|
How am I keeping you away from the free software movement? You do realise the founder of the free software movement wrote the GPL, right? And they also call permissive licenses "pushover licenses". And what about wanting to steal the source code for your "proprietary project"? Thats most anti free software movement you can get. Or maybe I missed that you changed your mind somewhere :) |
More often than not, software is not written for your PC. @michalfita has made an excellent outline of where the software industry is at, and why GPL is avoided like wildfire. Besides, many companies simply don't want to have their IP infected by and subordinated to legal text copyrighted and controlled by one American non-profit. When it comes to your personal crusade for freeing your PC, you can use and improve software under GPL all the way you want. Others don't have to suffer because of it.
Hold on right there, you're jumping between two different topics. What those companies do is their matter. It's not like they are forcing you to install their proprietary forks, are they? You can compile any free kernel yourself and use it. |
|
Everyone, please read Rust's Code of Conduct, which will be used in Kerla as well, before discussing the software license here. This thread tends to be too heated. Even if you think an opinion is incorrect or does not make sense to you, there is no need to be rude and offensive. There's no perfect software license. Each license has pros and cons. Don't forget to respect that people have differences of opinion. |
@vorot93 made excellent comment already, but I'd like to underscore one thing you @Zambito1 misread: Companies avoid GPLv3 licence code in products exposed to customers, not avoid using it at all.
Fallacy. You @Zambito1 as a crusader perceive computers through the prism of personal ownership. Again, you miss the point of law and regulations, but if you don't like the product where firmware cannot be replaced by your own you don't have to buy it - you can cook your own solutions on Raspberry Pi (btw. they're using proprietary blobs licensed by Broadcom). Another aspect is who the customer is - many products I worked on where never sold to private customers, only companies - they don't have doubts and as long as money buys them support they expected they don't mind proprietary code and locked bootloaders.
True. But we very rarely sell software, only license to use it. And I may sell license to source code if I wish (it's actually popular practice in embedded world).
OK, but it's about your computer, 100 other customers (mostly companies) don't mind paying for license to use software they don't have freedom to modify. And this is not going to change because Stallman once said all software should be open for everyone. We can embrace open software as common good, but we still have to let programmers earn for bread and shelter... and quite often equipment to work on.
You're only right to certain extent. We in the past have to use network traffic sniffer with dissector for proprietary protocol which license didn't let us use outside our company. We started working on dissector for Wireshark (licensed GPLv2) when our lawyers instructed us, that using that dissector across business units in different countries classifies as distribution according to the license... so we had to pay thousands of dollars for proprietary network sniffer which let us keep the protocol confined within company. The protocol was a about 200 pages of Word document - nothing else, no code delivered with it, just the specification with explicit license to use only within boundaries of our company and certain category of products. If Wireshark had permissive licence or exception for dissectors we'd used and train 3 to 5 developers how to write dissectors for Wireshark in the process; what are chances in future one of them would use the skill to add open source dissector to Wireshark? Things like that are lost chances. There are companies out there that underlay statements to sign on employment that people would not contribute to GPL during tenure without explicit written permission from legal department - the risk of defamation if there would ever be any patent dispute is too high for them. With permissive license, in case of any suspicion patents where violated it's enough to remove the code, while GPL may imply patent had been implicitly licensed - no patent holder would like that (luckily in Europe software patents don't hold). A lot has been said about licenses in this thread, I'm signing of myself from observing further discussion and participation as I don't have time to follow this any more. Kerla stays MIT/Apache 2.0 for now and that's fine for me. |
|
@nuta I think it's time to lock this issue now (or even locking it). A lot has been said already and it's just going to be back and forth arguments. |
|
Closing this issue because I'm not going to change the license for now. Please feel free to open a new issue when you noticed that Kerla is suffering from a free rider problem. For now, it's too early to change the license. See the comment I mentioned above:
|
It helps where an error is constructed:
[ 0.585] [7:curl] syscall: close(ffffffffffffffff, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0)
[ 0.585] WARN: close: error: EBADF: This error originates from:
#1: ffff800000184219 kerla::printk::capture_backtrace()+0x79
#2: ffff8000001dbb13 kerla::result::Error::new()+0x23
#3: ffff8000001dc0e7 <kerla::result::Error as c...la::result::Errno>>::from()+0x17
#4: ffff800000211177 <T as core::convert::Into<U>>::into()+0x17
#5: ffff8000001fcb55 kerla::fs::opened_file::OpenedFileTable::close()+0xa5
#6: ffff80000010b124 kerla::syscalls::close::<i...yscallHandler>::sys_close()+0xa4
#7: ffff80000011bf62 kerla::syscalls::SyscallHandler::do_dispatch()+0x4e62
#8: ffff8000001168fc kerla::syscalls::SyscallHandler::dispatch()+0x1ac
|
I am here just to suggest a GPLv3 later or AGPLv3 later license, god, Linux since a lot is GPLv2 only, it's a opportunity to fix it, I'll be happy using Kerla it it will have the best license, but god... MIT? wtf? Its a really bad idea create a kernel to substitute linux but without the libre software guaranties, I'm sure that if this grow up so much, the corps will take it and make business without any important and just contribution, how happened before with PlaystationOS or MacOS and FreeBSD. And the only way to avoid the tivoization and bootloader blocking in android phones is the GPLv3. So, Docker its becoming so popular in these last years, Personally i consider the best license option is APGLv3 later. |
|
The GPL does not restrict freedom, it guarantees it. |
|
You're so ignorant, GPLv3 were introduced in Jun 2007 to fix the new problems like tivoization, the privative SaaS and other disgusting things. Please, read before to talk/write about something you do not know. |
|
@inoshy OMG what's wrong in your life? I haven't got time to read the whole thread but... definitely you're so ignorant and just a troll. If you wont say something useful, don't do it, there is not necessity to insult or say stupid and child things like "iS hIs CoDe, iF wRitE tHe YoUrS". Please, don't reply me, just keep quiet, If you have got some interesting to contribute, you're welcome, if not, I do not wanna see it, just don't reply me or quote me. |
|
@inoshy @EuriNaiz Please follow our Code of Conduct. Please be kind and courteous. As I said earlier, I think it's still not a good time to change license. I do know what copyleft licenses provide and their advantages, furthermore it’s not like I stick to permissive licenses. However, they're risky since they would prevent companies from using (and contributing to) Kerla just because of the non-permissive license. As @EuriNaiz said, it's also true that some companies are using open source softwares without contribution. I do recognize the concern is a real threat. If we notice the unfortunate situation, let's discuss the copyleft license to deal with the situation then. Switching to GPL sounds too early to me. Kerla is still a toy operating system. |
|
I'll lock the conversation since we're repeating the same conversation over and over. Please feel free to create a new issue only if you noticed that we're suffering from the free-rider problem. I'm happy to discuss non-permissive licenses then. |
|
@nuta I would suggest moving it to discussions.
Anything beyond that is just a discussion about licenses. |
|
@lain-dono I think Kerla's discussion forum is not a good place to discuss about the license. We'll repeat the same conversation there too. More importantly, general discussions on software licenses are not specific to Kerla as we've seen in this thread. |
and others
The big problem of MIT license is that the companies love take the project and close it or not colaborate in the main or parent project. Because MIT license has not the "Freedom 3: The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements (and modified versions in general) to the public, so that the whole community benefits." .
There are a lot of links about this:
IMHO: GPLv3 is better.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: