Conversation

@oneBasedBrother
>The Free Software Foundation identifies four specific freedoms, but really there are three.
Yikes. Software can't be free without the 4 freedoms.
>They decided to make it POSIX compliant.
>Basically it would be a kind of clone of Unix – a powerful and popular operating system of the time.
The name of the GNU system is a recursive acronym that stands for "GNU's Not Unix". The GNU operating system was not designed to be "POSIX-compliant," but to operate in freedom. The best way to describe the GNU operating system is that it is a free operating system, while Unix is a powerfully proprietary operating system.

In the words of Richard Stallman: "To copy Unix source code would not be ethically wrong, but it is illegal; our work would fail to give users lawful freedom to cooperate if it were not done lawfully. To make sure we would not copy Unix source code or write anything similar, we told GNU contributors not even to look at Unix source code while developing code for GNU. We also suggested design approaches that differ from typical Unix design approaches, to ensure our code would not resemble Unix code. We did our best to avoid ever copying Unix code, despite our basic premise that to prohibit copying of software is morally wrong".
>Ultimately, Torvalds, realizing the complementary aspects of the two projects, adopted much of the GNU Project’s software and released his kernel to the public under the GPL.
There are many things that would not have been possible for Linux without GNU, but fundamentally, the ability to be compiled, since you cannot compile a kernel without a compiler (at that time, only proprietary compilers existed, which also cost a fortune).

Torvalds *needed* to use GNU software to create Linux.

In the words of Linus Torvalds: "Sadly, a kernel by itself gets you nowhere. To get a working system you need a shell, compilers, a library etc. These are separate parts and may be under a stricter (or even looser) copyright. Most of the tools used with linux are GNU software and are under the GNU copyleft. These tools aren't in the distribution - ask me (or GNU) for more info".

On the other hand, Torvalds released the first usable version of Linux (0.02) on October 5, 1991, under a proprietary license. However, thanks to Lars Wirzenius taking Linus Torvalds to a talk by Richard Stallman during his visit to Finland in the same autumn of 1991, along with pressure from other contributors and Wirzenius's insistence, Torvalds announced on January 5, 1992, that Linux would be relicensed under an ambiguous GPLv2, effective from February 1, 1992, according to the release notes of version 0.12. Finally, in the Linux 0.99 release on December 13, 1992, Torvalds relicensed Linux under an ambiguous GPLv2.

Unfortunately, with the release of Linux-2.4.0-test8 on September 8, 2000, Torvalds clarified that Linux is licensed under a GPLv2-only.

However, this is not the most concerning issue, as in 1996, Torvalds introduced the first proprietary program among many in Linux. Currently, according to personal and non-exhaustive estimates, Linux has around 3,000 proprietary programs. A precise check of this number would be appreciated.

Fortunately, on May 19, 2008, the Linux-libre project was founded.

You can learn more here: https://www.gnu.org/software/linux-libre/

>Today, there are over 50,000 free software projects. Some, like Linux
Linux is not even source-available.

>Free software systems, featuring the Linux kernel
To be a free software system, it must include Linux-libre. On the other hand, what is Linux if not a kernel?

>If you surf the web, use a cell phone, or record television shows, chances are you’re using free software.
It is also probably that you are being *used* by proprietary software. The web is filled with proprietary JavaScript, and the smartphone is a pocket-sized device designed for tracking and surveillance — it is Stalin's dream.

>In 1998, prior to IBM’s investment in the Linux kernel–and by extension free software–
Linux had been proprietary software since 1996.

>a debate began about what to call free software. Stallman preferred the term “free software” because he felt it emphasized the importance of source code freedom.
This is correct. Free software should indeed be referred to as "free software".

>Others disagreed. They argued that corporations would never be able to identity the value of something that they perceived as being “free as in beer.”
Proprietary corporations understand that free software is free, not gratis. However, that doesn't concern them, as their greed allows them to ignore a fundamental truth: once created, software has a marginal cost close to zero. What they sell is not development, but restriction. In simpler terms: they are enemies of humanity.

>They lobbied for a change in name to “open source software.” They felt this removed the emphasis from “free” and allowed them to demonstrate that this development model would enable more innovation, higher quality code, and faster development times.
Indeed, the open source movement despises freedom. They advocate for higher quality code, not free code.

To delve deeper: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html

>Most folks today call free software, “open source software” and this may be the term with which you are familiar.
This is a regrettable mistake, much like calling Linux GNU.

Public

Notices

Feeds