GNU C Library Looking To Drop FSF Copyright Assignment Policy

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[coder]

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.

Thanks for explaining your objection. I apologize for my sloppy wording, but I figured everyone here would understand what I meant. I don't mind the correction, as long as it's clear.

Let's revisit your ode of praise to FSF

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.

I think you're being too parsimonious, here. Quite a lot of UNIX-relative (and other) operating systems have used FSF software. What about FreeBSD and its cousins, for instance? Haven't they long used gcc, GNU's libc, and certain other GNU tools?

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.

Fair point, although my statements were primarily retrospective, since I was replying to a post concerned with the creation of Linux.

While your corrections are welcome, it's not my goal to get into a big battle over semantics. However, if you feel there's an important distinction worth making, go ahead and make it. I'm sure I could learn a thing or two.

[coder]

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.

Can anyone meaningfully speak to the amount of GNU software left in Android? I think it's not much.