Unfortunately not enough. It still allows corporate use with limited restrictions. Only derivative work that gets distributed must be open sourced, and even then, they can choose to provide source only to those requesting it in inconvenient ways (ex: come pick up the flash drive from our office).
For example, android does not require open sourcing, despite GPL’d Linux, but because it’s not derivative work.
I agree with the geneal idea that one could do even more than what the GPL does, but i think it does a lot already.
On the case of Android, i think Google doesn’t care too much about the kernel code itself, wouldn’t mind contributing back to it if they had to, as the entire ecosystem of software around the kernel is what they use to capture users and keep control of their devices… GGL doesnt need the kernel for that, and the linux kernel is a smol drop of code in the ocean of a prison that is android…
See how Google is adverse to the use of the AGPL in their own products https://drewdevault.com/2020/07/27/Anti-AGPL-propaganda.html this would in practice force them to reveal to their users how they process their data, and would probably scare them to death…
So I am not a proponent of copyright, but it seems that GPL and AGPL are pretty effective tools at discouraging corporations in some cases (not perfect though)
Yeah… Google also wrote toybox to get away from the GPL’d busybox, uses a libc based off BSD, and is trying hard to get their own kernel written in the Fuschia project that isn’t GPL…
This is why I’m fundamentally opposed to what the coreutils rewritten in Rust project is doing. And the guy who started it just claims that he’s not interested in the license or legal stuff, he just picked MIT. I mean, maybe he really doesn’t for all I know, but he can certainly imagine the implications of what he’s doing, no? Personally, I don’t believe him.
This FSF guy might sound like he’s coming in to be a scold but he’s absolutely correct (https://github.com/uutils/coreutils/issues/1781). We can clearly see the implications of an essential (coreutils) MIT-licensed project like in Android where it is “Linux” strictly speaking, in that it uses the kernel, but every other piece of code is some form of MIT or BSD licensed software that allows Google to, rather successfully, jail its users.
Edit: And if you want to do some reading about how this argument over licenses formed, especially with a PR campaign to support the non-GPL style ones, check out the first half of this piece about Tim O’Reilly (as in the O’Reilly books guy) https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-meme-hustler
GNU GPL r0x
:)
Unfortunately not enough. It still allows corporate use with limited restrictions. Only derivative work that gets distributed must be open sourced, and even then, they can choose to provide source only to those requesting it in inconvenient ways (ex: come pick up the flash drive from our office).
For example, android does not require open sourcing, despite GPL’d Linux, but because it’s not derivative work.
I agree with the geneal idea that one could do even more than what the GPL does, but i think it does a lot already.
On the case of Android, i think Google doesn’t care too much about the kernel code itself, wouldn’t mind contributing back to it if they had to, as the entire ecosystem of software around the kernel is what they use to capture users and keep control of their devices… GGL doesnt need the kernel for that, and the linux kernel is a smol drop of code in the ocean of a prison that is android…
See how Google is adverse to the use of the AGPL in their own products https://drewdevault.com/2020/07/27/Anti-AGPL-propaganda.html this would in practice force them to reveal to their users how they process their data, and would probably scare them to death…
So I am not a proponent of copyright, but it seems that GPL and AGPL are pretty effective tools at discouraging corporations in some cases (not perfect though)
Yeah… Google also wrote toybox to get away from the GPL’d busybox, uses a libc based off BSD, and is trying hard to get their own kernel written in the Fuschia project that isn’t GPL…
This is why I’m fundamentally opposed to what the coreutils rewritten in Rust project is doing. And the guy who started it just claims that he’s not interested in the license or legal stuff, he just picked MIT. I mean, maybe he really doesn’t for all I know, but he can certainly imagine the implications of what he’s doing, no? Personally, I don’t believe him.
This FSF guy might sound like he’s coming in to be a scold but he’s absolutely correct (https://github.com/uutils/coreutils/issues/1781). We can clearly see the implications of an essential (coreutils) MIT-licensed project like in Android where it is “Linux” strictly speaking, in that it uses the kernel, but every other piece of code is some form of MIT or BSD licensed software that allows Google to, rather successfully, jail its users.
Edit: And if you want to do some reading about how this argument over licenses formed, especially with a PR campaign to support the non-GPL style ones, check out the first half of this piece about Tim O’Reilly (as in the O’Reilly books guy) https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-meme-hustler
thanks for the comment. it is exactly how I feel about this and similar projects.
and thanks for the edit, had an insightful read.