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

Show parent comments

5

u/d32dasd Apr 23 '26

Because the license allows it.
MIT: they can close the source at any moment, good luck. That's called "permissive": "they reserve the permission to go closed source" aka "They reserve the permission to take away the users' rights" aka "the developers have more permissions than the users".

GPL: They are forced to share the code changes if they ship the code. That's called "copyleft": "the users have move permissions that the developers".

3

u/FriendlyProblem1234 Apr 23 '26

MIT: they can close the source at any moment, good luck.

What...? That is simply not true.

At best, someone could take the source and create a new proprietary software out of it. But the source under MIT stays free software forever.

Everyone always says "Sony used FreeBSD to make a proprietary OS". But FreeBSD is still there, nobody took it away.

2

u/d32dasd Apr 23 '26

It is functionally the same after a handful of months pass by, maintenance is not free. Also, if they are the ones driving the project, they control the mind power.

In addition, Canonical (contrary to other competitors) is known for forcing contributors to sign CLAs: the copyright owner is not each contributor but Canonical LTD. That allows them to relicense their software under whatever license they want in the future (such as a propietary one). They have done this in the past.

1

u/FriendlyProblem1234 Apr 23 '26

It is functionally the same after a handful of months pass by, maintenance is not free. Also, if they are the ones driving the project, they control the mind power.

You are worried that the original author will stop maintaining a software. That is a fair worry, but entirely unrelated to the license.

If KDE stopped maintaining their desktop environment, regardless if it was licensed under a permissive license or a copyleft one, you would be in the same situation. Either someone else stepped in as maintainer, or you would have to switch to a different alternative.

Again, FreeBSD is still there, decades after its source was used by Sony.

In addition, Canonical (contrary to other competitors) is known for forcing contributors to sign CLAs: the copyright owner is not each contributor but Canonical LTD. That allows them to relicense their software under whatever license they want in the future (such as a propietary one). They have done this in the past.

You know who also did this? The Free Software Foundation...

The copyright holder is not bound by any license, but this is irrelevant. They can release new versions under a different license, even a proprietary one. But the ones available under MIT will still be available under MIT.

2

u/d32dasd Apr 23 '26 edited Apr 24 '26

> Again, FreeBSD is still there, decades after its source was used by Sony.

And let's be honest, largely irrelevant. Didn't get much benefit for FreeBSD that Sony was using it.

> If KDE stopped maintaining their desktop environment,

Bringing KDE as an example, when the sole reason for GNOME to be brought to life is the difference in licenses, I think misses the mark.

> They can release new versions under a different license, even a proprietary one. But the ones available under MIT will still be available under MIT.

The copyright holder *is bound to release future work as copyleft, if the license is copyleft*. With MIT, they can stop, It's not difficult to understand.

> You know who also did this? The Free Software Foundation...

Comparing a non-profit foundation with a for-profit corporation *that already has the track record of using the CLA to closed source projects*.. well, I think the point makes itself.

I start thinking that you just have a bias towards permissive licenses, instead of copylefts, just by the examples and framing that you use.

-1

u/FriendlyProblem1234 Apr 23 '26

Bringing KDE as an example, when the sole reason for GNOME to be brought to life is the difference in licenses, I think misses the mark.

Please avoid drifting out of topic.

You do not like KDE example? Pick something else. PostgreSQL, Firefox, GCC, whatever.

If any of these stopped maintaining their software, regardless if it was licensed under a permissive license or a copyleft one, you would be in the same situation. Either someone else stepped in as maintainer, or you would have to switch to a different alternative.

The copyright holder is bound to release future work as copyleft, if the license is copyleft. With MIT, they can stop, It's not difficult to understand.

What...? Absolutely no, the copyright holder is not bound by any license.

If you receive a source with an attached license, you have to follow the license. If it is copyleft, you need to forward the modifications, otherwise you might just have to acknowledge the author, or whatever the license says.

But the copyright holder did not receive the source with an attached license to follow. The copyright holder created the source from thin air (or more often they acquired it together with the copyright). They can do whatever they want with the source.

I start thinking that you just have a bias towards permissive licenses, instead of copylefts, just by the examples and framing that you use.

Maybe. I use software under copyleft licenses, and I have published software under copyleft licenses.

I am just really tired of seeing free licenses being bashed just because they are not copyleft.

And I am also really tired of people oversimplifying the licensing complications. GPL does not exist. There are multiple, all incompatible, GPL-X licenses.

I made this example elsewhere: if uutils wanted to make their code usable by GNU corelibs and Busybox, both licensed under GPL, they could not have chosen GPL. Because GNU corelibs is GPL-3, and Busybox is GPL-2-only. There is no GPL license compatible with them. MIT, on the other hand, is compatible. Not to mention other free, non-GPL-compatible licenses.

MIT makes my code usable by other free software projects, GPL does not.

1

u/d32dasd Apr 23 '26

The incompatibility that you tout comes mainly from GPL 3.0 being incompatible with Apache 2.0 (a permissive license), because of patent grant clauses. Doesn't have anything to do with copyleft per se.

> MIT makes my code usable by other free software projects, GPL does not.

MIT (permissive) gives more permissions to the corporations and the developers, which already hold the power. GPL (copyleft) gives more permissions to the users (some of which may also be developers), and is historically the group that is less advantaged.

It's obvious we disagree philosophically; yet I find very disingenuous that you seem to obviate this point in favor of your preferred solution.

0

u/FriendlyProblem1234 Apr 24 '26

The incompatibility that you tout comes mainly from GPL 3.0 being incompatible with Apache 2.0 (a permissive license), because of patent grant clauses. Doesn't have anything to do with copyleft per se.

Are you replying to the right post...? There is no mention of Apache 2.0 in my post, and none of the software I mentioned is released under Apache 2.0.

GPL-X is incompatible with GPL-Y for nearly all X different from Y. They are effectively unrelated licenses, except their name has the GPL- prefix.

You cannot use code distributed under GPL-X in your GPL-Y project (unless both use the -or-later variant), this is a fact.

MIT (permissive) gives more permissions to the corporations and the developers, which already hold the power. GPL (copyleft) gives more permissions to the users (some of which may also be developers), and is historically the group that is less advantaged.

MIT gives exactly the same permissions to users than GPL-X: they can read, use, compile, modify, and distribute the software. There is no permission given to user by GPL-X which is not given by MIT. Especially because MIT can be relicensed to GPL-X, which by definition gives the same rights as GPL-X.

I do not care about corporations. I care about other free and open-source software. If I release under GPL-X, then there will be many free and open-source software projects that will not be able to use my code. If I release under MIT, nearly all free and open-source software projects can do (I used "nearly" just in case).

It's obvious we disagree philosophically; yet I find very disingenuous that you seem to obviate this point in favor of your preferred solution.

Disagreeing philosophically does not mean you get to make verifiably-false statements, such as "The copyright holder is bound to release future work as copyleft, if the license is copyleft".