‘Linux’ Foundation increases number of Microsoft employees in the board of directors to THREE, the only geek in the board has left (or got removed)
‘Linux’ Foundation increases number of Microsoft employees in the board of directors to THREE, the only geek in the board has left (or got removed)
Summary: The Linux Foundation is gradually becoming a shadow of Microsoft, just like the Open Source Initiative, where most of the money comes from Microsoft and the official blog promotes Microsoft, its proprietary software, and Microsoft’s side in a class action lawsuit over GPL violations (with 9 billion dollars in damages at stake).
While I'm as concerned about historic EEE tactics re-emerging, I'm as equally concerned about FUD. The statement "but could not change the license of Linux, only pressure Linus Torvalds to reject GPLv3 after a campaign of lobbying" is just such a statement. Linus always had personal reservations regarding GPLv3 but that's beside the point. LINUX is licensed as GPLv2 and lacks the "or later" clause of many projects. It cannot be relicensed as GPLv3 without ALL contributors re-licensing their individual contributions.
historic EEE tactics re-emerging
Those tactics never disappeared, they just hide it better nowadays.
Right, this source is just weird. The story is 100% real, and honestly probably a problem to the extent that Microsoft and the Linux Foundation are even relevant anymore, but everything in this is told in this hyperbolic style that makes it hard to even make sense of.
just like the Open Source Initiative, where most of the money comes from Microsoft
Is this true? This doesn't sound true.
and the official blog promotes Microsoft, its proprietary software, and Microsoft’s side
https://www.linuxfoundation.org/blog
What is this even talking about? Where does whichever of these blogs this is talking about promote Microsoft's proprietary software?
in a class action lawsuit over GPL violations (with 9 billion dollars in damages at stake).
I was really curious because I hadn't heard of this. It turns out it's the Github Copilot lawsuit. I could be wrong, but I've looked and I couldn't find this $9 billion number anywhere else; it sounds like it's arrived at by simply assuming that 1% of code that Copilot produces is infringing, and computing DMCA damages based on that 1%. It's not really clear to me whether that argument was just an illustrative example of the scope of the problem, or whether they're actually asking for $9 billion, but I tend to assume the former. In other venues when the litigants have been asked what remedy they want, they've said things like, "We’d like to see them train their AI in a manner which respects the licenses and provides attribution," as opposed to "we want $9 billion."
Etc etc. I picked out a little excerpt, but the whole article is written like this which makes me look at it sideways.
Exactly. At this point I think it's practically impossible to change the license
no geeks or Linux developers left in the Board (it’s just ‘suits’ and corporate actors)
what could possibly go wrong?
Can anybody push back against the embrace?
Nobody has the fortitude to turn down a check with big numbers on it. So, no.
Be irrelevant or embraced. That are the options.
Linux Foundation has always been an industry consortium and not a community. LF has practically no relevance.
They have a revenue of 139 million in 2021, so they have some relevance, but yeah i would try not to put too much trust in them, and try to put in funding to the linux ecosystem that is "cleaner".
Software is put into the "care" of LF to die. LF does not steer Linux in any way.
Once you take money from someone, you are beholden to them. Applies in business, politics, and FOSS.
I know that the Linux Foundation exists to support and standardize Linux, but does it have any actual authority over it or the kernel?
No. They fund important projects and events, pay Linus personally which I was a little surprised by, and potentially malicious members have control over some important things (e.g. github). So, it's not really harmless, but that said, in terms of actual control over the software I don't think there's much they can do.
Please do now upvote techrights.org - they use hyperbolic tones and produce clickbait.
I mean, I guess I'm just surprised it's Microsoft taking over the foundation and not IBM.
Since Microsoft basically sponsors them I wonder why this didn't happen earlier.
Okay somebody quickly code up a free alternative to Linux
GNU's Hurd was supposed to be this iirc. That clearly hasn't gotten far and hasn't been progressing quickly.
GNU Hurd development was started in 1990 as a follow-up project of another, failed GNU kernel from years before. Linus Torvalds didn't start Linux development before April 1991.