Linux kernel is like 28mil lines of mostly driver and arch code. It’s open enough that you can basically use the code as it is to do what you please… There are limitations of course but the code is out there.
As it is the foundation and kernel ecosystem is seemingly pretty corporate friendly as it prob needs to be.
Are you worried that Linux might be attempted to be recooperated by capitalists somehow? It is a very valuable asset. I’m not sure how they could do it. Maybe they will try and make it more like corporate OSs… Or they will use their legal and sanctioning powers to prevent some people from using it how they would like.
There is simply no way that Linux becomes propietary since everyone working on it is a FOSS advocate. If it becomes propietary the community will just fork it and continue developing it has happened with many other projects like OpenOffice->LibreOffice etc.
As far as I know, given how GPL works, they would need legal consent from every single person who contributed to the project in order to do something harmful, which is obviously pretty impossible given the number of contributions.
Not a fan of the Linux kernel containing proprietary code. There are FOSS-only variants (e.g. Linux-libre, or Debian’s kernel), but most distros don’t use them. On the other hand, the vast majority of hardware is also proprietary, and they could execute malicious code even on “libre” kernels.
My main problem isn’t with the kernel itself, but the fact that Linux distros are being used to run proprietary code and that new users aren’t taught about FOSS. Last I checked, Ubuntu (still one of the most popular distros, AFAIK) allows users to install proprietary software in their “Software Centre”.
What do you mean by “recooperate”? They can’t change the license of existing Linux code, and AFAIK they can’t make future code proprietary either, aside from drivers (etc.) that don’t need to link to the main GPL part of the kernel.
I’m trying to express a growing mistrust I’m developing with that ecosystem. Others note that while contributing to it we are giving free labor… (although I haven’t done so yet) And speaking of the GPL, it is GPL2 and not GPL3 where GPL2 is more liberal. Which is more of a problem than you might expect. Yes it should prevent them from exercising proprietary control of it but it may also prevent us from protecting our labor…
No I don’t think an attempt to make the code private is a major concern… But the bourgeois legal system that underpins our discussion of licensing and labor is a much bigger issue.
I think this may be an ongoing decoupling concern.
“Are you worried that Linux might be attempted to be recooperated by capitalists somehow? It is a very valuable asset. I’m not sure how they could do it. Maybe they will try and make it more like corporate OSs… Or they will use their legal and sanctioning powers to prevent some people from using it how they would like.”
Hmmmm… this seems awfully familiar.
“Hey google, have you heard of any attempt made by a capitalist company that tried to recorperate Linux into something of their own and then use legal and sanctioning powers to prevent people from using it however they like?”
…
Google assistent says that she doesn’t know of any company like that,
but she does want to let you know that there’s a new version of Android OS and Chrome OS on the market.
You’re going to have to buy a phone/tablet for that though.
A new laptop/desktop is not required (yet), she says, but it is recommended.The mobile ecosystem is just absolutely terrible. At least with other consumer and semi-consumer devices like x86 and SBCs you are free to put whatever OS you want and not stick with the dystopian sh*t the corps are pushing on us.
But things can get worse so maybe wait for a divestment…
A company that Google assimilated did make the Android OS from Linux and there is likely important other software that derive from open-source software in some way. In a way, the success of Linux OS proves that the Capitalist system is not the best method to incentivizes the development of artificially scarce goods especially when a few companies can use the intellectual property right to establish oligopoly and stop market competition. The Liberal idea that free market and intellectual property right is the only method to develop artificially scarce goods depends on the Liberal myths that direct economic gain is the only incentive for work and innovation.
Do you think the capitalist model has applied itself better to hardware than software? Because open source hardware is much farther behind than open source software is I think.
The models of open source hardware vs open source software are different. But I don’t see why cooperatives cannot be formed to produce hardware along with public rather than private enterprises. You see this in other countries more favorable to socialism that aren’t still stuck trying to pretend capitalism is a competent and sustainable system.
They have already seized control of it. They can add as many binary blobs as they like to protect their trade secrets without facing any repercussions and still benefit from the volunteers’ unpaid labour.
Interesting because companies can seemingly get away with anything… But the same rights would not be afforded to us if let’s say we forked or tried to use copy far left licenses on our projects attempting to protect our labour from their exploitation.
deleted by creator
