Linux

67479 readers

316 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

I changed my license (bergie.iki.fi)

submitted 2 days ago by HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.org to c/linux@lemmy.ml

40 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/35110129

This year I decided to switch my “default license” to EUPL-1.2. This is an OSI-approved free software license created and published by the European Union. And it is quite a divergence from the licenses I’ve used in the past. EUPL is a strong copyleft license that closes the “SaaS loophole” by requiring reciprocal licensing regardless of how the software is distributed.

Over the years it has been clear that we in the “open source” camp (as opposed to the “free software” camp) were wrong all along.

We won the debate, and gained little for users or developers. All that our efforts did was to make it easier for big corporations build things more cheaply and for billionaires to become trillionaires.

And so it is time to stop messing about with permissive licenses. If corporations don’t want to use our software under our terms, they are free to spend the effort or tokens to build their own.

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

[–] mholiv@lemmy.world 4 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Not true. The EUPL defines distribution broadly enough that it covers saas style network use. It’s like the AGPL.

From the article:

And it is quite a divergence from the licenses I’ve used in the past. EUPL is a strong copyleft license that closes the “SaaS loophole” by requiring reciprocal licensing regardless of how the software is distributed.

From the official source:

For many open licences, distributing software is obtaining it (i.e. via downloading) in order to install it on your own device. Licences do not cover remote use, when a user interacts remotely with server-provided functionalities. The definitions in article 1 of the EUPL assimilates "communication to the public" to "distribution" and therefore targets and covers SaaS (software as a service) and the ASP (application service provider) activity.
Article 1 defines as "- Distribution or Communication: any act of selling, giving, lending, renting, distributing, communicating, transmitting, or otherwise making available, on-line or off-line, copies of the Work or providing access to its essential functionalities at the disposal of any other natural or legal person.".

Therefore on this specific point, the EUPL is similar to the AGPL.

Source: https://interoperable-europe.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/faqs

[–] talkingpumpkin@lemmy.world 2 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

TIL, thanks!

[–] mholiv@lemmy.world 1 points 13 hours ago

Np. I only mention it because sure it’s a weirdly pervasive piece of misinformation.

That and I generally support strong copyleft licenses that primarily act from a non USA base of laws.