Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Microsoft is one of Linux Foundation biggest donors, which means they have leverage over them. They are invited to discuss new Linux developments, products, etc...



Is that bad? Do we not want Microsoft involved with Linux? They are the #2 cloud provider.


A lot of the sponsors of the Linux Foundation have tried very hard to make sure that Linux's copyleft is not enforced. VMWare is one recent example. They exerted their influence by defunding the Software Freedon Conservancy. I consider this a net negative.

On the other hand, most Linux devs do not want to ever take anyone to court for copyleft violations. While I agree that it's very reasonable to almost never take anyone to court for a copyleft violation, it still needs to be a weapon of last resort.


The day Linux goes MIT/X11 is the day it's gone. Lord help us if they ever succeed.


Linux can't change its license without getting permission from the (tens of) thousands of people who contributed to it, or throwing out their code.


You don't need prayers to ensure you can continue to run your software. It's unrealistic Linux can ever change to a different license than GPL2. Note, however, that this hasn't stopped Linux from being used as giant spyware (Android) and being overtaken by a single entity (RedHat) slowly eroding it (Systemd, Docker).

If you're concerned, I'd recommend basing your software on POSIX and make it also run on the BSDs, rather than just Linux, and in particular avoiding Linuxisms such as Docker and Systemd which you'll find are poorly designed anyway.


Seems like a conflict of interest to me.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: