Systemd 251 Released With systemd-sysupdate Introduced, Many Other Additions

[birdie]

Not true. At least they don't use Windows exclusively. Where I work all machines which get in contact with the source code (the secret sauce) use Linux. Only sales is on windows.

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. Congrats.

[jacob]

Just for the record. I am not a systemd hater. In fact I like it and I think it does solve more problems than it creates. I am also aware that systemd is a bunch of utilities albeit very tightly integrated. However since systemd allows you to link to proprietary software without contributing back you essentially can build "drivers" for systemd which again shims over kernel APIs.

As for the OS within OS argument, ok that was perhaps a bit enthusiastically and dramatically described by me, but when you got lot of de facto standard functionality it can easily be used badly with lgpl.

For example, systemd exposes a dbus API, and you can link something to systemd that uses this API which you don't have to provide the source code for, which again can provide convenient functionality that may be a decent lock-in starting point.

So unless I have misunderstood the lgpl I think I have a valid point here.

Will it ever happen? Not sure, but it is a possibility which can be used nevertheless.

IANAL but to the extent I understand the LGPL, it means that you can use a licence of your choice for any derived work as long as the LGPL part itself remains LGPL, with its source code available etc. Note that the LGPL is used for many important userland components, not least for Glibc. It has been that way literally for decades now, if it was a Trojan horse for lock-in, we would have noticed by now. Systemd only uses the already existing licence, by doing so it changes absolutely nothing as far as the ecosystem goes.

Regarding the DBUS APIs, it would be a question for someone more knowledgeable than me on the fine technicalities of software licensing, but my guess is that merely invoking a DBUS API wouldn't be considered a derived work so the LGPL that covers systemd wouldn't affect the client software in any way. In fact we already have numerous precedents. Software that talks to the Linux kernel over the syscalls API is not a derived work of the kernel and the kernel's GPL doesn't transfer to it. Similarly software that interacts with Mutter (or another Wayland compositor) over the Wayland protocol and DBUS is not a derived work of the compositor.

So in short yes, you can develop non-free software that uses systemd in the same way it uses the glibc, the desktop environments and the kernel. But you can't take systemd and make it proprietary. It's not a game changer in any way from that point of view.

[NotMine999]

birdie

One day you will fill up your Phoronix "ban list" with the name of every user in the Phoronix forums.

And then you will post a message on some topic and get no replies in return.

Sounds like a perfect world for you.

[waxhead]

So in short yes, you can develop non-free software that uses systemd in the same way it uses the glibc, the desktop environments and the kernel. But you can't take systemd and make it proprietary. It's not a game changer in any way from that point of view.

I don't think it will happen , but systemd allows for linking to proprietary libraries and since it is such an important part of the system my point is merely that the mechanism/basework is there (the way I see it) to allow for possible extensions that could "transform" systemd to a more sinister variant. Will it happen? Quite honestly I think not , at least not in the short term. If it does happen I am sure someone will fork systemd and it may gain traction. The danger with Microsoft is that far too often have they executed the infamous embrace, extend and extinguish tactics and I believe they are going to do that again sooner or later to slowly and surely work on the first E's - at least the way I see it.

PS! sinepgib : Did this answer your question too? I am concerned about the possibilities - not exactly what is possible or sensible right now.

[jacob]

I don't think it will happen , but systemd allows for linking to proprietary libraries and since it is such an important part of the system my point is merely that the mechanism/basework is there (the way I see it) to allow for possible extensions that could "transform" systemd to a more sinister variant. Will it happen? Quite honestly I think not , at least not in the short term. If it does happen I am sure someone will fork systemd and it may gain traction. The danger with Microsoft is that far too often have they executed the infamous embrace, extend and extinguish tactics and I believe they are going to do that again sooner or later to slowly and surely work on the first E's - at least the way I see it.

PS! sinepgib : Did this answer your question too? I am concerned about the possibilities - not exactly what is possible or sensible right now.

Once again, systemd allows that exactly in the same way as glibc (which is LGPL too - in fact the LGPL was originally created specifically for glibc). You can link glibc with nonfree libraries. For example Qt used to be nonfree for a while and it was built with g++ and linked with glibc. The LGPL is not a permissive licence like BSD or MIT. It allows linking to proprietary code but on the condition that the original LGPL code remains accessible under the LGPL. So no, it can't be used to turn systemd into something "sinister" just like glibc never turned into anything sinister. On the other hand, many of the systemd bashers (I'm not implying that you are one) always proclaim how they will move to BSD, well, the BSD licence explicitly DOES allow that.

[oleid]

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. Congrats.

Well, show me yours, I show you mine

[Alexmitter]

Microsoft secretly wants Linux to become more bloated, so that it will stop having the edge over Windows in performance benchmarks and people will stop switching to Linux for performance reasons

If that is what Microsoft wants, then they would promote old style init systems. Nothing gets more bloated then 70s technology wrapped into so many layers of shell scripts that it is nearly able to do the same things as a modern init system, just worse.

[birdie]

Well, show me yours, I show you mine

Go check your government PCs - discover Windows 8/10 everywhere.

[oleid]

Go check your government PCs - discover Windows 8/10 everywhere.

Actually no, we are using Linux here in Spain.

[TurBo_biT]

Actually no, we are using Linux here in Spain.

Spain, alias the twilight zone xDDDD, if you want we can meet and cry toguether...