GNU C Library Looking To Drop FSF Copyright Assignment Policy

[coder]

You know the context of the posting or do you think lines are next to each other for no reason?

Your message seemed to conflate GPL with the copyright assignment issue. I was simply trying to clarify the distinction for @M@GOid , whom you were answering.

My apologies to you ego. But, had your answer been clearer, I wouldn't have felt the need to reply.

[sdack]

You, RMS, the Free Software Foundation, and GNU software have reached their current high profiles largely on the back of Linux.

No. Linux has always been riding on the back of GNU. This is not just GCC, but you need to include the entire GNU base, from GCC, the binutils, the C library, the coreutils, make, gzip, tar, and many more GNU tools. And the Linux kernel is currently still distributed under the GPL-2.0.

GNU itself then has been riding on the back of UNIX long before Torvalds started picking Minix code apart to create his own UNIX-like kernel, to then run GNU software with it. And yes, this means Linux is riding on the back of UNIX.

Linux has made itself a slave of GNU, whether one likes it or not. One cannot wish it away, but one has to work in order to remove it. Only then will Linux be free from GNU.

To just imagine it away and dream it was not so is as dumb as the rest of the cancel culture.

[jabl]

With the way Linux has been ignoring POSIX standards you cannot call Linux "Unix-like" any more. It's just Linux nowadays, going it's own way.. Getting shit built on Linux (or for Linux) ported over to actual "Unix-like" OS'es has become major effort or may be flat out impossible when your porting effort happens to meet purely Linux-specific implementations. "Unix-likeness" assumes compatibility.

Nah, Linux still is as POSIX-compliant as it ever was (that nobody has bothered to officially get a UNIX certification for any Linux distro perhaps speaks more about the value of that official certificate). Now what has happened is that POSIX has largely stagnated, and instead of being stuck in the past together with POSIX, Linux has continued to evolve. So yes, while software written for 'POSIX' will with a very high likelihood work perfectly fine on Linux (and to be honest, in many cases that's perfectly good enough), software that takes advantage of newer Linux features like io_uring, cgroups or the like, won't work on other operating systems.

[aht0]

Um, exactly what is wishful thinking?
Linux is a UNIX-like OS kernel, in terms of its device model, its privilege model, its directory structure, its filesystem model, and countless other details. This is no accident, because it was originally written as yet-another UNIX clone. Sure, it has definitely grown and evolved, but it roots are still clear enough to qualify it as a UNIX-like OS.

Anyway, this nit-picking over semantics is missing the point. Linux wouldn't have been shit without the stuff contributed by the FSF. And its kernel being GPL has had profound effects on its evolution.

My only point is that the troll post by Ironmask was as overly dismissive of the value of FSF's contributions as it is overstating Stallman's control and influence over Linux and GPL software.

I am not nitpicking, I am pointing out your factual error. You spoke about Unix itself, not about Unix-like. And you did spoke using words that strongly imply all Unices were using FSF software - which is as untruth as can be.

Let's revisit your ode of praise to FSF

Dude, the FSF wrote gcc, ld, libc, among many other tools and libs.

Whatever you think about Stallman and Emacs, a UNIX OS ain't shit without userspace tools or a C compiler. That's what FSF contributed, besides their GPL for the kernel.

I'm no fan of Stallman, but this turd should've been left in 2015.

Not a single true certified Unix has ever been built upon FSF-sponsored software. And when it comes to "Unix-like" software - it's just GNU/Linux and Hurd built purely on those.

With the way Linux has been ignoring POSIX standards you cannot call Linux "Unix-like" any more. It's just Linux nowadays, going it's own way.. Getting shit built on Linux (or for Linux) ported over to actual "Unix-like" OS'es has become major effort or may be flat out impossible when your porting effort happens to meet purely Linux-specific implementations. "Unix-likeness" assumes compatibility.

[Bigon]

does exist a public domain license? Would you please share a link if you know it?

Note that, AFAIK, willingly putting your work in the "public domain" is only a thing in countries that have copyright laws. In countries using "droit d'auteurs" kind of laws, this it not possible, as you cannot giveup all your rights on your work

[discordian]

Yeah, but that's only if you transfer the copyright and their license doesn't permit the other things you want to do with it (such as contributing it to a project with an incompatible license or using in closed source).

Yeah your code then is like GPL code from someone else, cause that's what it legally is at that point. *slow clap*

If you retain the copyright, then you can still use GPL, today. Later, if you ever change your mind or want to offer your software for inclusion in closed source software, there's nothing preventing you from offering it under different or additional licenses, at that time.

What else, sky is blue, if I dont code I dont have to care about GPL?
You know the context of the posting or do you think lines are next to each other for no reason?

[coder]

That's the best part, they know they're copypasta but they're getting angry at me anyway as if I'm genuinely writing them all out.

Your first post was obvious copypasta, as I said. I didn't think you were posting it in bad faith, however. Fucking around with people is in fact the very definition of trolling.

[Ironmask]

coder, tildearrow, it's various copypastas.

That's the best part, they know they're copypasta but they're getting angry at me anyway as if I'm genuinely writing them all out.

[BesiegedAce]

coder, tildearrow, it's various copypastas.

Anyways, no, Richard, it's 'Linux', not 'GNU/Linux'. The most important contributions that the FSF made to Linux were the creation of the GPL and the GCC compiler. Those are fine and inspired products. GCC is a monumental achievement and has earned you, RMS, and the Free Software Foundation countless kudos and much appreciation.
Following are some reasons for you to mull over, including some already answered in your FAQ.

One guy, Linus Torvalds, used GCC to make his operating system (yes, Linux is an OS -- more on this later). He named it 'Linux' with a little help from his friends. Why doesn't he call it GNU/Linux? Because he wrote it, with more help from his friends, not you. You named your stuff, I named my stuff -- including the software I wrote using GCC -- and Linus named his stuff. The proper name is Linux because Linus Torvalds says so. Linus has spoken. Accept his authority. To do otherwise is to become a nag. You don't want to be known as a nag, do you?

(An operating system) != (a distribution). Linux is an operating system. By my definition, an operating system is that software which provides and limits access to hardware resources on a computer. That definition applies whereever you see Linux in use. However, Linux is usually distributed with a collection of utilities and applications to make it easily configurable as a desktop system, a server, a development box, or a graphics workstation, or whatever the user needs. In such a configuration, we have a Linux (based) distribution. Therein lies your strongest argument for the unwieldy title 'GNU/Linux' (when said bundled software is largely from the FSF). Go bug the distribution makers on that one. Take your beef to Red Hat, Mandrake, and Slackware. At least there you have an argument. Linux alone is an operating system that can be used in various applications without any GNU software whatsoever. Embedded applications come to mind as an obvious example.
Next, even if we limit the GNU/Linux title to the GNU-based Linux distributions, we run into another obvious problem. XFree86 may well be more important to a particular Linux installation than the sum of all the GNU contributions. More properly, shouldn't the distribution be called XFree86/Linux? Or, at a minimum, XFree86/GNU/Linux? Of course, it would be rather arbitrary to draw the line there when many other fine contributions go unlisted. Yes, I know you've heard this one before. Get used to it. You'll keep hearing it until you can cleanly counter it.

You seem to like the lines-of-code metric. There are many lines of GNU code in a typical Linux distribution. You seem to suggest that (more LOC) == (more important). However, I submit to you that raw LOC numbers do not directly correlate with importance. I would suggest that clock cycles spent on code is a better metric. For example, if my system spends 90% of its time executing XFree86 code, XFree86 is probably the single most important collection of code on my system. Even if I loaded ten times as many lines of useless bloatware on my system and I never excuted that bloatware, it certainly isn't more important code than XFree86. Obviously, this metric isn't perfect either, but LOC really, really sucks. Please refrain from using it ever again in supporting any argument.
Last, I'd like to point out that we Linux and GNU users shouldn't be fighting among ourselves over naming other people's software. But what the heck, I'm in a bad mood now. I think I'm feeling sufficiently obnoxious to make the point that GCC is so very famous and, yes, so very useful only because Linux was developed. In a show of proper respect and gratitude, shouldn't you and everyone refer to GCC as 'the Linux compiler'? Or at least, 'Linux GCC'? Seriously, where would your masterpiece be without Linux? Languishing with the HURD?

If there is a moral buried in this rant, maybe it is this:
Be grateful for your abilities and your incredible success and your considerable fame. Continue to use that success and fame for good, not evil. Also, be especially grateful for Linux' huge contribution to that success. You, RMS, the Free Software Foundation, and GNU software have reached their current high profiles largely on the back of Linux. You have changed the world. Now, go forth and don't be a nag.
Thanks for listening.

[tildearrow]

Apple tried to create their own system for years, but finally gave up recently and moved to Intel and Microsoft.

"Recently"? Are you in 2006?

Apple has already deployed another in-house system (Apple M1) and have been moving away from standards since 2012.