Software Freedom Conservancy

Hey, I genuinely appreciate it and I am going to send you a mail right away.

I didn't know libraries were such a massive way and I don't think we really have libraries here, atleast not in my city that I can think of a non profit library, I might need to search though. and the funny thing is that some people would just have a bunch of sitting rooms and call them library here.

I have definitely thought about this more and the only nuance that comes up is that i haven't even gotten a degree right now and its something that I plan to do. Its just that I want to have an option to have a cs job too if things don't work out, and I personally don't know but as I said I am pretty frugal and I don't know how others feels but I don't know if anybody would even donate or my project would have even value if I am being honest. I am really a pessimist sometimes..

Its just that I would love to do these things but I would also want to just earn barely enough that my parents wouldn't think that I am doing something foolish in my life either and I can be respected enough in the society as well, these feelings really grapple me if I can be honest...

Honestly, I will keep in touch with ya and my first plan of action is trying to write my first draft of a manifesto of sorts on what I want to bring to the table in a similar fashion to how I had written the comment but maybe better...

I have also thought more and I am thinking something like fiscal sponsorship might be the right way atleast…

The danger is specifically to the copyright holders of Linux - the authors who have code in the kernel. If they do not defend their copyright, then it is not strong and can be broken in certain scenarios.

"Linux copyright holders in the GPL Compliance Project for Linux Developers believe that distribution of ZFS binaries is a GPL violation and infringes Linux's copyright."

Linux bundling ZFS code would bring this text against the GPL: "You may not offer or impose any terms on any Covered Software in Source Code form that alters or restricts the applicable version of [the CDDL]."

Ubuntu distributes ZFS as an out of tree module, which taints the kernel at immediately at installation. Hopefully, this is enough to prevent a great legal challenge.

https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2016/feb/25/zfs-and-linux/

Having read [1] in particular, I think you're right and I was mistaken. Thanks! That's quite eye-opening for me, as I followed discussion about GPLv2 and GPLv3 for years yet didn't know about this view of GPLv2 and reinstallation.

Having heard so much about anti-Tivoization when the GPLv3 was being drafted, and the discussions about it on linux-kernel when Linus decided the kernel will remain GPLv2-only, I was left with the impression that the GPLv2 only required the provision of source code, build scripts, etc. but not the ability to reinstall a new version. [1] makes a pretty good case that the ability to reinstall is also required GPLv2, and I'm heartened that's how Tivo saw it too.

[1] https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-the-gpl-right-to-install/

You probably missed the news that RedHat decided to systematically violate the GPL:

https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/jun/23/rhel-gpl-analysis/

tl;dr: They no longer publish source packages except to paying customers. If the paying customers republish the source, then RedHat closes the account.

I'm surprised none of the upstream developers have sued them for violating the license. There's no way I'd trust an organization that was behaving so unethically with control over my machine's package manager.

Anyway, I've been pretty happy with Devuan (Debian without SystemD). I find it much more stable than Ubuntu, Arch, Debian, etc., and all the userspace stuff I care about works great.

It looks like BMW is not in compliance. As far as I can tell, no one has done a complete corresponding source (CCS) check on that code like we did for Tesla: https://lists.sfconservancy.org/pipermail/ccs-review/2018-May/000000.html

A brief look at the code BMW provided suggests they haven't provided any information on how to build or install the code, both of which are required by the GPL.

If you do find or receive source code from other car manufacturers, please try to build it before concluding that they are compliant. If you have trouble, please report this issue to us at https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/#reporting and we'll do our best to help.

I posted my response on a blog post at: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2018/oct/16/mongodb-copyleft-drafting/

TL;DR: while vmbrasseur of OSI does say "what's done is done" in comments here, I think the OSI shouldn't accept the proposal as submitted, and should demand that licenses submitted them to have gone through a prior public drafting process. This is particularly important for licenses whose stated goal is to make fundamental changes to how copyleft works. GPLv3 and (even better) copyleft-next made this the standard of how new license drafts are done, and we should follow that standard.