Linux

67062 readers

247 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
No misinformation
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 7 years ago

MODERATORS

nooter692@lemmy.ml

MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml

cypherpunks@lemmy.ml

cyclohexane@lemmy.ml

Has anyone heard of cpak? (piefed.world)

submitted 6 days ago by girlpower@piefed.world to c/linux@lemmy.ml

10 comments fedilink hide all child comments

From their GitHub:

cpak installs applications from OCI images while keeping package metadata in a Git repository. It provides native desktop integration, shared content-addressed layers, atomic updates and a rootless Linux sandbox from one Go binary.

It seems interesting. I've never heard of it before, but apparently Bottles packages with cpak along with flatpak. The main reason I use flatpaks are its sandboxing capabilities, so it would be cool if cpak brings new stuff to the table while matching or overpassing the sandboxing capabilities.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] girlpower@piefed.world 8 points 6 days ago (5 children)

I just read the license of cpak and I can't say I'm a fan.

[–] Evotech@lemmy.world 7 points 6 days ago

Why? It’s a fair license but with corporate restrictions

[–] warmaster@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

This license provides full access to the source code, encourages public auditing and community collaboration, and imposes copyleft rules. However, because it includes a restriction on replicating the core purpose of the Product, it does not meet the Open Source Definition (OSD) by the Open Source Initiative (OSI), anyway, the point 6b ensures the license will eventually convert to an OSI-approved license.

FPAL is best described as a source-available, copyleft, and business-protective license.

Honestly, if any distro included this, it would be an instant red flag.

[–] adarza@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 days ago

https://github.com/Containerpak/cpak/commit/92ce3d2c13860199f5e7158cb67b0775957a81de

the linked project literally changed to gpl3 five hours ago.

[–] exu@feditown.com 2 points 6 days ago (2 children)

The restriction pretty much aims at companies like Amazon that rehost an open source project. That sounds pretty fair to me

[–] novafunc@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 5 days ago

I don't think so, this still would let them host it so long as don't have a "competing fork". I've heard of licenses like Server Side Public License (SSPL) that do you what you say. Basically, that license requires all the infrastructure around the software to be open source to. So something like AWS couldn't host the software without first open sourcing all their infrastructure.

[–] elvith@feddit.org 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

What about this? This basically forbids you to fork the software if you want to - e.g. because they're maybe going closed source in a few years?

You may not use the Software, in whole or in part, to create, distribute, or operate any product, system, or service whose primary function directly overlaps with or replicates the core business purpose of the Product, unless explicitly authorized in writing by fabricators.

[–] Unreliable@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 days ago

The way I read that is they don't want forks fixing specific issues/making improvements when those changes could all be in the one implementation.

[–] vas@lemmy.ml 0 points 6 days ago

Yup, that's simply a deal breaker. [For me].

If it's for you, too, you could maybe even mark the post with [SOLVED] or "Update:...". If you wish. No obligation.