undefined | Better HN

0 pointswkat42426mo ago0 comments

Linux had the chance to fight against what GNU called "TiVoisation" but Linus said TiVo did nothing wrong.

So now we have a world full of devices running open software but which are locked down. And a Linux foundation run by corporates.

To me it is clear this was indeed a huge problem. Linux might not have become as big as it is now if it had taken GPL3 on board but it would have made it a lot harder for manufacturers to do what they're doing.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

brianwawok6mo ago· 2 in thread

So they took gpl3, and manufactures all licensed windows. Does this help Linux or FOSS?

wkat4242OP6mo ago

No the Linux kernel didn't move to gpl3 for this reason.

It should have, IMO. Because now we're stuck with all these locked devices. Even PCs are becoming more locked now. FOSS (at least on the OS level) can't really exist without open devices to run it on. Otherwise you're dependent on the gatekeepers of big tech and there's nothing 'free' about it anymore then.

jsiepkes6mo ago

> No the Linux kernel didn't move to gpl3 for this reason.

Maybe, but even if they wanted to, it would be almost impossible. In Linux, the license of contributed code says "GPLv2", period. Not "GPLv2 or higher" like a lot of other projects do. If you are not the rights holder, you can't "re-license" a piece of GPLv2 code as GPLv3 as you could with for example a BSD license piece of code. Simply because the GPLV2 is too restrictive. So that would mean getting in touch with all current and past right holders / contributors (and maybe even people who inherited the rights of contributed code if the contributor passed away?) and get permission to re-license to GPLv3.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse