GNU Hurd 0.8 & Mach 1.7 Released

[tajjada]

It's not a pet project. Hurd+Mach is a fallback plan. Since Linux can't be re-licensed, changes to copyright laws, export laws or new trade agreements could expose it to closed sourcing or even render it illegal to use under US soil. One such eventuality could be as simple as requiring all licenses to be submitted in both English and Spanish. Or maybe, a requirement for a disclaimer clause regarding encryption export or regulatory safety standards. Other engineering fields have seen similar law changes across the world which rendered old licenses obsolete and required re-licensing.

Similarly, BSD is equally exposed to law changes.

So, as far as GNU are concerned, if Linux and BSD break, they'll have something to fallback on since they can re-license Hurd+Mach. It's hasn't been a huge concern so it wasn't really prioritized in over 20 years... But recently IP and Encryption laws have seen some proposed legal changes both locally and in trade agreements so there's some renewed interest. Though admittedly, it's still not really prioritized or anything.

I have never heard this argument before. I guess I haven't thought of things from a legal standpoint. Makes sense; although it is so behind technologically, that it might not even be viable as a fallback plan.

[Luke_Wolf]

It's not a pet project. Hurd+Mach is a fallback plan. Since Linux can't be re-licensed, changes to copyright laws, export laws or new trade agreements could expose it to closed sourcing or even render it illegal to use under US soil. One such eventuality could be as simple as requiring all licenses to be submitted in both English and Spanish. Or maybe, a requirement for a disclaimer clause regarding encryption export or regulatory safety standards. Other engineering fields have seen similar law changes across the world which rendered old licenses obsolete and required re-licensing.

Similarly, BSD is equally exposed to law changes.

So, as far as GNU are concerned, if Linux and BSD break, they'll have something to fallback on since they can re-license Hurd+Mach. It's hasn't been a huge concern so it wasn't really prioritized in over 20 years... But recently IP and Encryption laws have seen some proposed legal changes both locally and in trade agreements so there's some renewed interest. Though admittedly, it's still not really prioritized or anything.

[Citation Needed]

I would love for you to come up with something that even remotely suggests this from GNU/FSF, as last I checked their stance was "We would love people to be using Hurd, and people should be using Hurd, but we recognize we got bogged down by trying to adapt the Mach Microkernel, and so Linux has won... for now... so we're going to claim Linux as GNU's kernel".

Futhermore your premise is fundamentally flawed in that while it may be impossible for Linux to change licenses, the BSDs not only can, but have relicensed multiple times, to progressively more permissive licenses, there's no reason to believe that they couldn't relicense into "acceptable licenses" in the future if the legal requirements change.

[coder]

1. reported 2. ... good that you say can of yourself that you are working on such projects.

That's a shame. Please lighten up.

It's fair to say that it's obscure and has a reputation for poor stability. The comment was juvenile, but not far off the mark. I lol'd.

[coder]

Since Linux can't be re-licensed, changes to copyright laws, export laws or new trade agreements could ...

Really?!? That's the entire reason for developing it? That's so boring, it's almost depressing.

And why can't Linux be relicensed?

I'm all for diversity, in the OS world. Like, maybe Mach has security, scalability, latency, or power advantages over Linux, on some architectures. In that case, it's nice to have options.

[aht0]

So, as far as GNU are concerned, if Linux and BSD break, they'll have something to fallback on since they can re-license Hurd+Mach. It's hasn't been a huge concern so it wasn't really prioritized in over 20 years... But recently IP and Encryption laws have seen some proposed legal changes both locally and in trade agreements so there's some renewed interest. Though admittedly, it's still not really prioritized or anything.

Would it affect OpenBSD too? Since it is located in Canada, not in U.S?

[c117152]

Sorry for the late response. I thought it was obvious enough so I didn't bother responding. Linux can't be re-licensed because you'd need every contributor to re-licensed his own contributions. Thousands of programmers and companies, some anonymous while others fell out of contact... A few of them aren't even alive,... And you'd need the signed consent of each.

Really?!? That's the entire reason for developing it?

GNU was always about a free operating system first and foremost. Technical consideration are second to the pressing need that emerged in the late 80s for free open computing. Imagine Microsoft controlled the server market like they did the desktop market... That what GNU prevented and that's plenty.

Would it affect OpenBSD too? Since it is located in Canada, not in U.S?

BSD is permissive so any person can take the code and re-license it. GNU is restrictive so it can't be re-license without the explicit consent of the programmer, or a special clause like the "GPL v.2 or later" that essentially gives the GNU foundation the ability to re-license the code.

Regarding geography, it's a problem everywhere. What keeps IP laws in place are international trade agreements, but those haven't been reworded explicitly for computer software. For instance, fair use right now is open to local interpretation. Just this week, Google won an appeal declaring their use of Java APIs fair use... But the principle that you can license APIs could resurrect SCO's legal battles against Red Hat and they could claim the UNIX APIs are theirs.
Similarly, Microsoft could sue over WINE and Samba\Cifs since they probably own the protocols and APIs' IP. Since these issues are fought on a case-per-case basis in every country, things can go downhill rather quick.

[coder]

Linux can't be re-licensed because you'd need every contributor to re-licensed his own contributions. Thousands of programmers and companies, some anonymous while others fell out of contact... A few of them aren't even alive,... And you'd need the signed consent of each.

Wow, you mean Linus accepts patches without requiring copyright be assigned to the Linux Foundation? That's nuts.

Imagine Microsoft controlled the server market like they did the desktop market... That what GNU prevented and that's plenty.

I credit GNU with GPL and the GNU Tools, but I don't accept that the open source movement wouldn't have happened if not for GNU. It's also not a foregone conclusion that the only server alternative to Linux was Windows.

That said, I'm willing to entertain the notion that Linux' success over other free/opens ource alternatives had much to do with its license. I'm no kernel expert, but I've seen & heard enough that I doubt Linux succeeded through sheer technical superiority.

[c117152]

Wow, you mean Linus accepts patches without requiring copyright be assigned to the Linux Foundation? That's nuts.

I'm surprised this needs linking to be honest: https://opensource.stackexchange.com...ghts-is-all-ri

I credit GNU with GPL and the GNU Tools, but I don't accept that the open source movement wouldn't have happened if not for GNU. It's also not a foregone conclusion that the only server alternative to Linux was Windows.

Open source would have been limited to small academic circles otherwise. There were multiple technically superior alternatives to linux during the early years even in the realm of UNIX like systems. Some were even open source. But without the GPL to protect them, they all failed both in the market and in the "community".

That said, I'm willing to entertain the notion that Linux' success over other free/opens ource alternatives had much to do with its license. I'm no kernel expert, but I've seen & heard enough that I doubt Linux succeeded through sheer technical superiority.

A quick code comparison between NetBSD code and Linux leaves little doubt about technical superiority amongst the unices. Outside the *nix world, opinion diverge between Plan9 and one of the microkernels...
What linux has is decent hardware support and a dependable scheduler. The scheduler isn't really all that great, but it does the job. However, the quantity of drivers is priceless. And it to no small part, thanks to the license that the drivers ever get written and released. This is evident with the BSDs where drivers are often ported from linux, and wouldn't have ever been possible without linux.

[coder]

I'm surprised this needs linking to be honest: https://opensource.stackexchange.com...ghts-is-all-ri

It doesn't. I'm not sure why you did. All I said is that I thought Linus should've long ago required people assign him (or the Linux Foundation) the copyright. Sure, a few would be reluctant to do it, but that would've avoided any consternation over the relicensability of Linux.

Open source would have been limited to small academic circles otherwise.

That's your opinion. There was more going on than just GPL, when Linux started to gather a following. A little thing called the Internet was catching on, at the time. In any case, we can't prove counterfactuals, so it's a rather moot point.

[aht0]

What linux has is decent hardware support and a dependable scheduler. The scheduler isn't really all that great, but it does the job. However, the quantity of drivers is priceless. And it to no small part, thanks to the license that the drivers ever get written and released. This is evident with the BSDs where drivers are often ported from linux, and wouldn't have ever been possible without linux.

AFAIK BSDs can't really "port" Linux GPL drivers. They'd have to write them pretty much from scratch due license and differences of OS itself. Could you bring examples of the exact drivers that have been ported from Linux? I keep bumping into threads in BSD forums where someone requests driver from Linux but the responses are "we can't really, without going at it pretty much from scratch.. First Because GPL does not allow direct port and second, BSD/Linux OS kernels share no direct code and use often different mechanisms to implement things.. "