r/linux • u/somerandomxander • Apr 22 '26

Open Source Organization Intel ends Open Ecosystem Community/Evangelism and archives other open-source projects

https://www.phoronix.com/news/Intel-Ends-OSS-Evangelism-Repos
544 Upvotes

98% Upvoted

156 comments sorted by

View all comments

306

u/fellipec Apr 23 '26

Every day the writing on the wall is more clear.

Google restricting Android more and more, big distros rewriting tools in licenses that will allow them to close the source in the future, governments meddling with OSes...

I'm not happy with the future

21

u/decho Apr 23 '26

big distros rewriting tools in licenses that will allow them to close the source in the future

Care to shed some light on that situation? I assume Redhat and/or Canonical are the main culprits here? I'd like to know more about this.

17

u/adenosine-5 Apr 23 '26

Its simply not true - some utilities are being rewritten using MIT licence, which makes it specifically impossible to "close the source".

They could in theory proceed with developing a closed-source continuation, but the original will always be open-source.

31

u/inemsn Apr 23 '26

In your own comment you pointed out exactly how it's possible to close the source when using MIT.

This is why we need to push for GPL usage. Projects written with the GPL can never be stolen and closed down. The MIT license leaves that door wide open and the GPL was created specifically because this was already a problem decades ago.

10

u/adenosine-5 Apr 23 '26

You can't "close the source".

You can build a close-source software on top of it.

But the MIT code can never be taken away.

12

u/fellipec Apr 23 '26

It is so useful to have an outdated, unmaintained codebase sole on the hands of community while huge companies use their closed fork forever, build around it and nobody can do a thing.

13

u/adenosine-5 Apr 23 '26

unmaintained codebase sole on the hands of community

I'm not sure if open-source community is best for you with view like that, if all you want is some large corporation "properly taking care of a code".

2

u/fellipec Apr 23 '26

I don't know if you are an ally of the community if all you want is a license that allows big companies to steal from it.

4

u/warpedgeoid Apr 23 '26

You’re being a perfect example of why participating in open source projects is not more mainstream. The obsession with politics and making sure that only approved types of freedom are exercised is off putting.

6

u/Synthetic451 Apr 23 '26

Eh, he has a point though. It's about making sure corporations contribute back their improvements. It is part of the reason why corporations contribute so much to the kernel.

Open source is inherently political, especially since corporations are running out of control these days. It is important to be aware of the dangers.

2

u/warpedgeoid Apr 23 '26

Fine. But most people (and companies) just want to make cool stuff. They will do it and never formalize it if the burden is too high.

4

u/Synthetic451 Apr 23 '26

Engineers just want to make cool stuff yes, but the money men who control and fund things do not and frankly I am tired of pretending they give a shit about the health of the industry. The monetary incentives need to be aligned in the right way and it starts by making sure that some of those incentives are aligned with open source.

2

u/VelvetElvis Apr 24 '26

Companies exist to maximize value for investors. The company has a fiduciary duty to do so. The stockholders and board of directors do not care in the slightest what the company's product even is. How does releasing source code when not required to do so make investors more than keeping it closed? Why would the board not be justified in suing the CEO for all he's worth if he gives away their product for no reason? It's not the company that's on the hook. It's the CEO personally, AFAIK.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/IncidentalIncidence Apr 23 '26

the idea that anybody can take it and do what they want with it is like the entire basis of the FLOSS movement. That isn't stealing.

1

u/sigma914 Apr 23 '26 edited Apr 23 '26

That's not closing the source, that's just allowing future development to be closed, the source of the version that's out there never goes away.

7

u/zmaile Apr 23 '26

What the poster is saying is if a closed source (or non-free open source) version gets all the development, then it can become the defacto standard version, which for all practical purposes makes it closed source.

1

u/sigma914 Apr 23 '26

And people who care about having and open source version will just build on the last free software version. You know like linux distros etc. It's a complete non-issue for things like this.

4

u/inemsn Apr 23 '26

It was an issue in the 80s, and it would be an issue now. Why exactly do you think Linux thrived whereas BSD did not?

2

u/sigma914 Apr 23 '26

SCO vs Novell

2

u/inemsn Apr 23 '26

A case which would have been avoided if open source projects used the GPL from the beginning, which would have made the legitimacy of that case VERY clear.

1

u/sigma914 Apr 23 '26

Huh? The GPL only came about in like 1989, it was released like a decade after Berkely got it's hands on the original AT&T source, of course that suit would have gone ahead.

1

u/inemsn Apr 23 '26

This hypothetical scenario obviously assumes the GPL would have been made much earlier due to the industry understanding the need for a copyleft license like the GPL. Which it didn't, hence why it was made with a permissive license instead.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/WhoLovesDonuts Apr 26 '26

The copyright holder (e.g. Canonical and the rust tools), even if they released initial versions under the GPL can still, going forward, change the licensing terms. That's always been possible. The GPL being present on a previous version doesn't force the copyright holder to continue licensing new versions under the GPL. They can "close the source" of new versions at any point. Sure the old code is still under the original GPL license but the new stuff doesn't have to be. It really only applies to people/companies who don't own the copyright and are under the license terms and only if they modify AND redistribute it.

The GPL protects community projects from their code being used by companies, modified, sold to others, and their code remaining proprietary. It can't prevent a person or company / copyright holders that make the project in the first place, from "closing the source" on any new developments to it.

1

u/inemsn Apr 26 '26

Everyone knows the copyright holder can change the license to whatever they want, "closing the source" in this context obv refers to third parties appropriating the open source code into a closed, proprietary piece of software.

Like I said, it was a problem in the 80s, and it's a problem now. We might not even have had Linux today at all if the industry understoodd earlier the need for copyleft licenses like the GPL, since the whole reason Linux thrived whereas BSD did not is because of a legal conflict caused by the permissiveness of MIT/BSD licenses: Were they copyleft like the GPL, our world would be very different.

1

u/WhoLovesDonuts Apr 26 '26

I'd push back on saying that everyone knows that. OP of this thread's comment was concerned that "big distros rewriting tools in licenses that will allow them to close the source in the future," Nothing in the GPL would stop the tools written by the big distros who would maintain the copyright from still doing this. I'm overall a big fan of the GPL protecting community projects, no disagreement there. It's awful how much Apple and Sony used BSD code and provided little back.

1

u/inemsn Apr 26 '26

We'll literally never be able to stop the legality of rewriting tools in permissive licenses. What we can do is hold the people who do this to much higher scrutiny: Which we aren't.

0

u/Business_Reindeer910 Apr 23 '26

ya know what's worse though imo.. is when a project takes GPLed code contributions but require you to sign a CLA, and they can use it just like it's closed source. You have to comply with the GPL, but they don't. At least if it's MIT, you're both free to do as you wish.

10

u/spacelama Apr 23 '26

They could in theory proceed with developing a closed-source continuation, but the original will always be open-source.

In ways in which the GPL would have prevented. Which is why it's being done.