Happy birthday 🎊🎉 GNU/Linux.
Today GNU/Linux is 32 years old.
It was thankfully released to the public on August 25th, 1991 by Linus Torvalds when he was only 21 years old student.
What a lovely journey 🤍
Happy birthday 🎊🎉 GNU/Linux.
Today GNU/Linux is 32 years old.
It was thankfully released to the public on August 25th, 1991 by Linus Torvalds when he was only 21 years old student.
What a lovely journey 🤍
Something is open source or isn’t. There’s a set, binary definition.
I get the feeling you’re implying a difference/aversion between those two terms which doesn’t exist. This and the combination with a nonsensical statement about amount of GNU packages vs non-GNU packed makes it feel like you’re pushing an agenda here: There’s far more free software than just GNU’s - that’s a success for free software and the GNU project. There’s no connect between the argument you’re obviously implying.
Also HURD never took off - but why should it? The GNU project’s goal is a fully free operating system, with Linux being persuaded to adopt a proper license there’s no real need for HURD. It doesn’t mean it isn’t a fun project.
Which two terms? Everyone has an agenda but I am not sure what I am being accused of here. Do you mean Free Software vs Open Source? The FSF goes to great lengths to distinguish between those two terms:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html
I am pretty sure my usage is consistent with the owners and creators of those terms. Have I made an error?
The error is in saying something is made “more open source”. The definition:
https://opensource.org/osd/
Does your license uphold these rules? It’s open source. Does it not? It isn’t.
FSF and OSI have slightly different definitions for software. FSF believes in free and open source software (copyleft i.e. GPL) whereas OSI believes in permissive, open source licenses (i.e. MIT/BSD).
In the 1990s, they had disagreements against each other because FSF and Stallman believe in FLOSS/FOSS and free software advocacy politics. OSI was more concerned with open source workflows and not with free software advocacy politics, which was initially more popular with businesses.
That is not correct. Who is this “they” you are talking about? The OSI?
Open source is a term with a definition - which has been written by software freedom advocates by the way.
With free software you have politics and a philosophy, in which somebody can have more freedom or less with a piece of software. I really wouldn’t confuse that with the practicability of the OSI definition.
Copyleft or push-over is a whole separate topic. Copyleft might be favoured by software freedom enthusiasts, but I disagree with your idea of separation through that. Even if you don’t care about software freedom, you could like the practical effects of the AGPL.
I feel like you’re spreading at least misguiding information here.
Richard Stallman, the man behind GNU and FSF. He makes a distinction between free software and open source software.
Stallman is not a pragmatist. He quit his job as a professor at MIT because he felt they were forcing him to use proprietary software, which contradicted his ideals.
Linus still keeps Linux on GPLv2 because he disagrees with GPLv3+ and its anti-tivotization clauses. Companies that contribute code back to Linux is good enough for him. Linus has a more pragmatic view.
These statements do not contradict anything I have said. Some people are pragmatic, some dogmatic about software freedom. So what?
Another correction since I am on a roll: Linux can’t switch from GPLv2. There are too many copyright holders, you’d never be able to contact all of them and get them to agree to a license change. Even if Linus Torvalds wanted to change, which I honestly don’t think would be a sensible thing to do in his position.
Open source is one thing but “free” is a lot of things.