You are aware that Android 3.0 is closed source above the kernel? You are aware that not all of Android 4.0 is open source (there are lots of necessary bits like device drivers and multimedia framework that are closed source)? Adam, are you a FOSS supporter or a Linux supporter? A Linux supporter has any reason to praise Linux, but a FOSS supporter doesn’t. Choose which of the two you are.

As Android and TiVo have showed, Linux doesn’t necessarily mean FOSS. Everything above the kernel can be closed source, yet the product is still technically “Linux”. So, why do you insist that Linux = FOSS

Now go an crawl back into your hole because you don’t have an answer for that question?

to praise Linux = to praise Android

Having LinuxInside™ does not make something an example of the Linux open-source operating system.

In other words, you’re talking crap.

“When Linux is successful somewhere, it is no longer Linux.” == http://www.tmrepository.com/trademarks/justakernel

I know there’s a TM that links to this comment (i.e How freetards swap the meaning of linux to fit their arguments). I just don’t remember how it goes.

Please Adam, make up your mind

exactly. bryan lunduke pointed this out too. linux kernel is actually not what makes a linux distro. you can use the freebsd kernel and wouldn’t be able to tell the difference.
the sad truth is that linux is ten years behind in the apps. i mean iphoto and msoffice vs. shotwell and libreoffice/koffice.
they didn’t even have a freaking web browser that worked until firefox came along.

I thought this one was actually worth voting up, for a change.

It’s irrelevant whether Adam “believes” in Linux or “believes” in FOSS, in a way. The Loons are hopelessly confused on this not-so-subtle distinction, and will presumably remain so.

Either way, there’s an interesting observation to be made:

The bits of “Linux” which are not dependent on the million eyes are the successful bits. That would be the kernel and the Android superstructure. From this perspective, FOSS might just as well not exist.

The bits of “linux” which are dependent on the million eyes are almost without exception shabby, incontinent wrecks of things that nobody uses, even though they’re free.

So, the argument isn’t really between “Linux” and “FOSS”; it’s between idiocy and non-idiocy.

I think we’re all (bar one) on the side of the non-idiots, here.

Maybe one reason for confusion is that some erroneously interpret a developer’s choice of license as a statement of ideology.

@Kim:

I don’t think that’s quite right, either.

It’s possible for a developer (or anyone else, for that matter) to choose a license without any concern for any possible underlying “ideology,” and it would be wrong to assume that all developers make their choice based on ideology.

In fact, I don’t know of anybody who makes that assumption.

It is, however, fair to assume that, if you adopt the GPL, you are quite likely to be asserting an ideological preference. Otherwise, why aren’t you adopting the BSD or WTFPL or even just not bothering with a license at all?

There are probably different licensing domains out there: for example, I would expect most (if not all) extensions to PHP to be issued under the PHP license, and I would expect anyone working with Apache code to adopt the Apache license.

However, the very fact that the GPL comes in three current flavours (LGPL, GPLv2 and GPLv3) suggests that the developer is making some sort of choice. If it isn’t ideological, then what is it?

Aaaaand …

Coincidentally, over on the other thread, Linsuxoid links to GKH [1], who is busy throwing all sorts of Android-related stuff out of the Linux kernel mainline.

It’s Android 1, Linux 0 at the moment, I’m afraid, Adam.

[1] http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/android-kernel-problems.html

From GKH:

“The Android kernel code is more than just the few weird drivers that were in the drivers/staging/android subdirectory in the kernel. In order to get a working Android system, you need the new lock type they have created, as well as hooks in the core system for their security model.

“In order to write a driver for hardware to work on Android, you need to properly integrate into this new lock, as well as sometimes the bizarre security model. Oh, and then there’s the totally-different framebuffer driver infrastructure as well.”

Don’t worry your pretty little head about the details, Adam, but it doesn’t really sound like Linux to me.

Let’s turn this around, shall we?

“If it’s succesfful, it must be Linux!”

Except when it isn’t.

There’s a quite obvious distinction between BSD and GPL that might make a difference independent of ideology. As far as I can tell that’s also a reason for why Linus did choose the GPL. I haven’t come across any hard evidence of Linus being particularly concerned about ideologies.

Since it doesn’t necessarily tell anything about a developer’s ideology why bother to question why someone would choose GPL over any other defined license? Couldn’t it be a purely pragmatic choice, since the GPL has been tested several times? A license isn’t more than a tool.

@Kim?

Is there?

Please illustrate.

@Dr L.

Don’t compare Linux to anything incontinent. At least with something that is incontinent, you can put a diaper on it and keep it from peeing all over the floor (been through this so I know what I’m talking about). As for Linux the only thing you can do with it is erase it from your system and start all over. Murder doesn’t equal diaper. ;-)

And remember, I’m not arguing that everybody who chooses the GPL is ideologically motivated. That particular illusion was your own straw man.

I’m finding it difficult to believe that anybody who is ideologically motivated would choose any license other than the GPL one, however.

“Since it doesn’t necessarily tell anything about a developer’s ideology why bother to question why someone would choose GPL over any other defined license? Couldn’t it be a purely pragmatic choice, since the GPL has been tested several times? A license isn’t more than a tool.”

I wasn’t bothering to question it at all, Kim. I could care less.

You, on the other hand? “Couldn’t it be …” that you are questioning the very thing that you suggest we are questioning, a single sentence after you point out that questioning that rather dull thing is supererogatory?

Why, yes, it could!

I’m not even sure what relevance your original point had, but as usual you appear to be shedding logical coherence as you go.

Don’t let me stop you. It’s all good.

“And remember, I’m not arguing that everybody who chooses the GPL is ideologically motivated.”

It looked that way, but if you so say. On the other hand you assume a lot about what I write, so if you’re generous enough we’re even.

Nobody will dispute that Android isn’t Linux. But it certainly isn’t FOSS.

How does it feel to have an OS that follows the exact same pattern of success that Windows did? An emerging market and a cheaper alternative to the Apple product of the day.

@Kim:

I try not to use terms that extend a specific objection to a generalised insult, but I’m afraid I am going to have to call you “obtuse” in this case.

The alternatives are that you are (a) an idiot (b) pretending to be an idiot for your own amusement or© hampered by the fact that English is not your first language. I’m settling for “obtuse” in respect of your comment:

“It looked that way, but if you so say. On the other hand you assume a lot about what I write, so if you’re generous enough we’re even.”

Here’s the timeline:

(1) You chip in with a comment completely unconnected to the post at hand. Nothing wrong with that, but one would imagine that it invites a separate analysis. Your comment:

“Maybe one reason for confusion is that some erroneously interpret a developer’s choice of license as a statement of ideology.”

(2) I respond:

“... it would be wrong to assume that all developers make their choice based on ideology.”

I qualify this with

“It is, however, fair to assume that, if you adopt the GPL, you are quite likely to be asserting an ideological preference.”

I then give reasons for this assertion.

Note that “quite likely” does not mean “absolutely guaranteed.” It is in fact rather a weak statement.

(3) You then assert:

“There’s a quite obvious distinction between BSD and GPL that might make a difference independent of ideology.”

I ask you for an explanation of your thinking on this point.

You give none.

At this point it is fair to say, I think, that I believe that there is a weak causal link between choosing the GPL (rather than one of the other equally well known licenses) and finding the ideology behind it attractive¹. It is equally clear that I do not believe that this is the sole motivating factor in all cases behind choosing the GPL.

It is probably also fair to say that you share this view: “might make a difference independent of ideology,” as you say (though then fail to develop the point). If it might, then there exists the obvious corollary that it might not.

In other words, we are probably quite similar in our beliefs on this point. Where you get the idea that I, or anybody else for that matter, is strongly of the opinion that “a developer’s choice of license [is interpreted] as a statement of ideology” is beyond me. You have provided no concrete evidence that anybody at all in the whole world believes this. And you clearly haven’t read my words with anything like sufficient attention.

Under the circumstances, I don’t feel “generous” (or insane) enough to admit that we are even. I don’t remember misrepresenting a single thing you have ever said; yet on the other hand, every time I try to follow one of your extended flights of fancy (first on Piestar and now here) I notice that you rarely start with a relevant proposition, that you don’t provide evidence unless backed up against a wall, that you never listen to a single argument presented by anybody else, and consequently that you never modify your original position in any way whatsoever.

Now, “don’t,” “don’t,” “never” and “never are strong qualifiers, and I freely admit that on occasion you may have put your customary obtuseness to one side and sallied forth into some semblance of reason.

I just have difficulty in recalling any such occasion.

[1] Left out of my original assertion was the “middle ground,” as it were. At one extreme, there are indeed people who use the GPL on the grounds of ideology and nothing else. (Since Richard Stallman exists, this can hardly be gainsaid.) At the other, there are people who use it “just because it’s there.”

There may, in fact, be people who choose it for commercial reasons, ie it would make them more likely candidates for employment by IBM or Red Hat or whoever.

However, I suspect that a very large middle ground exists of people who choose the GPL “because it’s for the general good,” or “because everybody cool chooses it,” or “because I’d feel like a M$/Apple/insert here Shill if I didn’t.”

All perfectly respectable reasons, and not really ideological at all.

... and completing my extremely tedious views on this point, I can think of two other reasons to use the GPL, neither of which are ideological — although they are most certainly ideologically-motivated, at a third-party distance.

(1) You want to include some GPLed code in your program, or packaged distribution. I’ve actually seen this in operation, and the GPL bit was merely the Cygwin bash shell. It’s possible to get around this and to issue the two parts separately (after consulting several layers of lawyers, if you’re a commercial enterprise), but it’s less hassle if you don’t.
(2) You expect that, at some future point, your software will be used in conjunction with GPLed code. Again, it’s less hassle just to give in.

I don’t see either of these as good reasons, but I can’t blame anybody who does.

I note that there have been several lawsuits in and around the GPL, but none to my knowledge around the PHP or BSD or Apache or even the WTFPL licenses (I may be wrong about BSD).

It’s a funny sort of freedom when you are driven to pick a particular “free” license just because you don’t want the hassle and/or legal imbroglios, isn’t it?

I’m not interested in what you are. If it’s important for you to define my person, be my guest, but you’ll never know unless you meet me in person.

One distinctive difference between BSD and GPL:

Only GPL requires modifications/additions of code to be presented. BSD licensed code is allowed to be modified without any obligation to do so. Hence some mean BSD license gives more freedom (there have at least been so many fierce discussions going on about it that I’m quite certain some choose BSD for ideological reasons as well).

An example of misinterpretation:

In the thread about a PHP, I at least didn’t get why you decided I was insinuating that Microsoft didn’t provide public information about security fixes of Windows. I didn’t question that, and I certainly don’t view PHP to have backing and organisation on the level of Windows.

“I’m not interested in what you are. If it’s important for you to define my person, be my guest, but you’ll never know unless you meet me in person.”

Even fscking Batman (literally) has it – it’s the things that you do that defines what you are.

Say what you will, but all the waffling about you have done here and all the conviction you have put in it have, in themselves, painted a rather consistent picture on at least partially of how you conduct yourself, and that, I tell you, is not in any way looking great on your person.

“Only GPL requires modifications/additions of code to be presented.”

But we all know that’s not always the case, don’t we? The ceavet is even written on the license, namely, that you don’t need to publicize anything in the form of source code so as long as you keep all your modifications to yourself. I believe that one can easily cited an example or two for that as well.

Now, the one million dollar question is, “What is so 'pragmetic’ about GPL?” Explain and show your working.

“The ceavet is even written on the license, namely, that you don’t need to publicize anything in the form of source code so as long as you keep all your modifications to yourself.”

I’ve read somewhere here http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/ (sorry, cant find exactly in which post), that you are actually not obligated to publicize anything, but if somebody, who is in posession of your binaries, requires you to send him the source, then you must do it. In other words, you are not obligated to have huge git/svn/etc. repo, facing the world (unless I’m wrong).

The only pragmatic reason I can think of is dual licensing. You release code under GPL to ensure that BasementDevelopmentArmy™ will do some of your homework and also get some free advertising. At the same time you sell commercial licenses to anyone who is interested.

Trolltech is one of the most known examples (Oracle does that too, but with different yet similar enough Sleepycat license). In both cases anything but “strong copyleft” is not acceptaple because it doesn’t provide enough incentive to potential customers to give away their money. GPL/Sleepycat on the other hand, makes any commercial usage practically impossible (sans some web programming) without purchasing “commercial license” free of “free/libre/open” restritrictions.

> that you are actually not obligated to publicize anything, but if somebody, who is in posession of your binaries, requires you to send him the source, then you must do it

Yes, this is correct summary of GPL.

Hasn’t the web development hole been plugged in some iteration of GPL3? 3.6.1-b or some bs?

Admin, I’m not sure what exactly are you asking about, but I think this is your answer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License

GPL3 plugs “tivoization hole”
It’s AGPL which was specifically designed against “application service provider loophole”. And it’s sometimes used with the same model as GPL (for example https://www.sugarcrm.com/sugarshop/).

I can’t believe people consider AGPL a “free license”. It just proves the FSF is a dictatorship (it’s free if i say so). Isn’t free software supposed to allow people to use free software to make money, and not having to show the source modifications if you don’t release it?

"Android isn't FOSS"

Another FUD that is pratted around the Internet with zero merit.

The bullsh!t worldview of the Winbred is that it is impossible for FOSS and/or Linux to be successful. The MAFIAA/Mafia$oft propaganda tells us that only "professionals" producing artificially scarce and defective by design products can produce anything of value.

Therefore, if something that is FOSS and/or Linux IS successful, we must either redefine "success" or redefine "FOSS". 

Because we can never change our flawed axioms! Otherwise we'd be admitting that our 18th century ideas of creative development are no longer valid!