Linux Foundation No Longer Lets Individual Members Elect Directors

[F1esDgSdUTYpm0iy]

and eventually migrate to a more permissive license

Well, if the GPL has accomplished one thing, it's a foothold. Basically, as far as the kernel itself is concerned, it's not going to be migrated to a different license. It can't. The GPL basically means everyone who ever contributed code to it would have to agree it being migrated to a different license, since they contributed their work under the GPL license. And consequently would have to agree, explicitly, to it being re-released under a different license.

And since there are many thousands of contributors by now. Sure, not all of them are as important or as productive as others but still, it's likely at least hundreds of active developers that would need to be coerced into submitting to a more permissive license. Not going to happen. The kernel is GPL and it's going to stay GPL.

[pal666]

and eventually migrate to a more permissive license

it requires rewrite of all gpl code, i.e. impossible. and it makes no sense, there are bsd kernels out there, they fail for a reason

[L_A_G]

Knowing what and awfully restrictive mess the GPL has become and what kind of fanatics it's supporters often are, I can to some extent understand why the Linux foundation doesn't want a GPL fanatic on their board causing problems for them whenever they try to work with businesses that aren't all for GPL style licenses. In real world politics GPL fanatics are like anarchists, they rarely get anything done and intentionally get into the way of everyone who wants to get something done, but doesn't do it exactly to their liking.

Don't get me wrong, I still think it's bull you-know-what that they'd remove the vote from the regular foundation members in regards to board membership.

[unixfan2001]

it requires rewrite of all gpl code, i.e. impossible. and it makes no sense, there are bsd kernels out there, they fail for a reason

And I still very much doubt today's licensing has anything to do with it. Linux just happened to be released at the right time, when the BSDs were falling behind due to broad IP issues and lawsuits such as UNIX System Laboratories, Inc. v. Berkeley Software Design, Inc.

Linux was fresh, unhinged by legal issues (actual issues, not the SCO farce a few years later) and brought a whole new development/management paradigm to the table.

Furthermore, Linux development didn't suffer from quite the same level of conservatism often seen in the BSD community.

[Passso]

And I still very much doubt today's licensing has anything to do with it. Linux just happened to be released at the right time, when the BSDs were falling behind due to broad IP issues and lawsuits such as UNIX System Laboratories, Inc. v. Berkeley Software Design, Inc.

Linux was fresh, unhinged by legal issues (actual issues, not the SCO farce a few years later) and brought a whole new development/management paradigm to the table.

Furthermore, Linux development didn't suffer from quite the same level of conservatism often seen in the BSD community.

You should rename your account "linuxfan2001" ;p

[profoundWHALE]

it requires rewrite of all gpl code, i.e. impossible. and it makes no sense,

I agree.

there are bsd kernels out there, they fail for a reason

Hahaha. Unless you mean attempted BSD licensed rewrite of Linux, you're crazy.

[SystemCrasher]

And I still very much doubt today's licensing has anything to do with it.

Yet, when Sony uses FBSD to run AAA games on PS4 and does not gives a fuck contributing back, it comes to the fact Linux can light up all AMD GPUs, even those used on PS4. And FBSD virtually lacks support for all GCN things at all. And something like this happens virtually everywhere. Let corporations to be greedy nuts, and they're going to be like this, even if it hurts upstream.

Maybe someone forgot the lesson, but when BSD devs took some AT&T code, they've got ... sued to the hell by AT&T. Ironically, this approach paid for itself - recently AT&T has gone for Ubuntu Linux on their servers. I do not even know how one can showcase their interaction model has failed to work in even more clear ways.

Sorry, but GPL turns eParasites into contributors and denying it is futile. It removes greed as factor. And so it improves overall contributions/interactions and overall it performs much better. Don't you mind BSDs appeared like 10 years before Linux, but never truly managed to take off?

[eidolon]

...RedHat pushing Gnome 3 down our throats.

Knowing what . . . kind of fanatics it's supporters often are, I can to some extent understand why the Linux foundation doesn't want a GPL fanatic on their board causing problems for them . . . In real world politics GPL fanatics are like anarchists, they rarely get anything done and intentionally get into the way of everyone who wants to get something done, but doesn't do it exactly to their liking.

She clearly advocates copyleft licenses over permissive licenses, but does Karen Sandler qualify as a "GPL fanatic"? Can someone provide me with specific examples of GPL fanaticism on her part? Compared to the typical BSD license vs GPL ranting that goes on at Phoronix, https://blogs.gnome.org/gnomg/2015/1...es-litigation/ seems fairly reasonable to me, efficacy notwithstanding, and irrespective of her opinion on any subject matter which falls outside the scope of licensing.

This being said, I can also appreciate a sentiment like this: https://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/10437.h...6117#cmt306117, https://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/10437.h...1509#cmt301509.

[L_A_G]

....

Most of that post was basically just assumptions based on how hesitant a lot of companies are in touching any GPL licensed code and how enforcement of GPL code has lead to problems not only for companies, but also open source projects like VLC when they released a version of it on the iOS App Store. I personally know someone who works for the group behind it and he tells me the relicensing under the LGPL that they had to do was a major pain in the ass with loads of hunting down contributors they had long since lost touch with and re-writing code created by people they couldn't get in touch with or who refused to allow their work to be re-licensed under the LGPL.

According to that she's been very active in the enforcement of the GPL license and has caused vendors to drop Linux development completely as result of it. If the idea of having her doing that kind of damage as a director of the board doesn't worry the Linux Foundation, I don't know what will. Linus himself is not a huge fan of Stallman-esque GPL fanaticism and fine with code that doesn't completely comply with Stallman's idea of "free".

[pal666]

Hahaha. Unless you mean attempted BSD licensed rewrite of Linux, you're crazy.

no i mean native *bsd kernels. nobody develops them and as a consequence nobody uses them