Linux Foundation No Longer Lets Individual Members Elect Directors

[unixfan2001]

That's a horrifically bad decision. As is the whole gold/platinum member hogwash.
They should just run it like a corporation. Every dollar (or every 99 dollars, or whatever) gets you a stake in the foundation and therefore an additional vote. Everyone has exactly the same voting rights.

Getting rid of voting rights for individual members because of one bad apple (who, IMHO, should not only not be allowed to run for the board but should be actively removed from the Foundation for her organisation's attacks against a fellow member) is in incredibly bad faith.

Releasing code under a less permissive license would be terrible mistake. But then again linux and the entire ecosystem is getting more and more corporation-controlled everyday. Look at RedHat pushing Gnome 3 down our throats.

Typo? The less permissive license is the GPL. BSD/MIT are far more permissive/liberal.

Look what I have found from their official website (LinuxFoundation's that is) that I did not know about it: LLVMLinux

Knew about this for quite a while. Not exactly a secret project.
It's, sadly, not fully functional yet. Shame, because GCC is nowhere near as good as LLVM (which is quickly becoming the industry standard).

[sarfarazahmad]

my bad. I meant a more permissive license. BSD/MIT license is one of the reasons FreeBSD lacks the visibility. about LLVM that is true. I heard sometime back even Microsoft wants a piece of the LLVM pie. They contributed code or something.

[unixfan2001]

BSD/MIT license is one of the reasons FreeBSD lacks the visibility.

I don't think this has anything to do with the licensing but rather basic attitudes. Besides, FreeBSD is one of the more visible BSDs, being a major codebase for Mac OS X.

about LLVM that is true. I heard sometime back even Microsoft wants a piece of the LLVM pie. They contributed code or something.

They're developing MSIL code generators based on LLVM in parallel to their already existing infrastructure. Their first one being a new JIT compiler for their CoreCLR that is supposed to help them run programs written in C# on new platforms more effortlessly.

[dragonn]

I don't think this has anything to do with the licensing but rather basic attitudes. Besides, FreeBSD is one of the more visible BSDs, being a major codebase for Mac OS X.

It has to do with the licensing - in BSD a company takes your code and often doesn't give antything back, so simple.

[unixfan2001]

It has to do with the licensing - in BSD a company takes your code and often doesn't give antything back, so simple.

Not everyone is a religious zealot about his code. Some of us like sharing for the sake of sharing, without any ulterior motives.
Furthermore, the fact that companies can freely "take" your code and use it in their projects without making any or all changes public should add to the visibility, not substract from it.

Vice versa, if the GPL really added much to public visibility, why are most GNU/FSF efforts going virtually unnoticed?

[Serafean]

Not everyone is a religious zealot about his code. Some of us like sharing for the sake of sharing, without any ulterior motives.

Some of us are
IMO GPL isn't an ulterior motive, it just ensures that what I put out there as Libre will stay so.

Furthermore, the fact that companies can freely "take" your code and use it in their projects without making any or all changes public should add to the visibility, not substract from it.

I disagree with this : there is no incentive what so ever for them to give credit, therefore you might not even know you're using your own code...

GNU efforts unnoticed - because the GPL has been portrayed as viral and bad for business. And that's an image it won't get rid of anytime soon.

[eltomito]

Is Linus gonna comment on this?

[binda]

It's true, the GPL is the reason for the success of Linux. Without it you wouldn't see that many competing companies contributing. With the GPL all companies profit from the work done by other companies and volunteer community contributors and vice versa.

[DanL]

So more $$ = more power. What could go wrong? The U.S. has been moving in this direction for years and we have an excellent government that still supports the best interests of individuals and is free of influence-peddling and corruption. Oh, wait...

[Sethox]

So this is some bold move, to do it "silently" only proves the concept of power corruption, then give the excuse of a problem of the past. Since money talks people should leave the "organization" and build another one like they really want it to be. I know it's easier said than done but let's be honest, there are far more "members" that want a Linux foundation to be a certain way than the way this seems to go.. or maybe not, maybe I am far off the track that I should shut up. Regardless, doing this silently is a d*ck move in my opinion.. it literally tells the members that only VIPs can get the whole/true story of what's going on in the organization.