With Jesse away it’s just Joe and the Irish this time. A good step forward for open hardware, Firefox is almost good now, kernel security politics, FSF mockery, a debate about licences, and more.
News
Firefox 57 Quantum and the Yahoo debacle
Firefox 58 anti-fingerprint etc.
Android kernel & SOCs looking a bit rosier
Linus gets heated about kernel security, then calmly explains his position, Others act like children
Gifts positive in the freedom dimension
New magazine from the Raspberry Pi Foundation – Hackspace
Entroware
This episode of Late Night Linux is sponsored by Entroware. They are a UK-based company who sells computers with Ubuntu and Ubuntu MATE preinstalled. They have configurable laptops, desktops and servers to suit a wide range of Linux users. Check them out and don’t forget to mention us at checkout if you buy one of their great machines.
Copyleft vs permissive licences
Listener Jeffrey Bouter asked about where we stand on FOSS licensing.
See our contact page for ways to get in touch.
FYI, the Dutch name “Kees” is pronounced as the English “case”. So not like the “kees” in “Yankees”, whose etymology I weirdly wasn’t aware of as a Dutch person. Apparently there was also a related Dutch version of Joe Six-pack in the form of John Cheese. Hilarious!
Look Joe, sorry De Ruijter, going to these lengths, then naming yourself after a famous Dutch chocolate sprinkles is taking it too far to win a pronunciation war 😉
I thought Joe was on the Yankees side?
I’m more of a Dodgers man. Much nicer weather.
Nice show. I got a little lost in the discussion at the end. For one thing, I was distracted by how Joe started off by pointing out that Ikey used the GPL v2 and then Ikey spent a while criticizing GPL v3 adn copy left without explaining why (that I could understand) he uses GPL v2 which is also considered copy left.
I feel similarly to Joe (and it seemed Ikey and Felim also were not far off on the spectrum) about the licensing issue. In an ideal world, everything would be free and there would be no need for the GPL. The next best would be if everyone used the GPL and so it was impractical to make closed source projects. However, in the world we have now, it seems like the permissive licenses are winning. I think this is for reasons you didn’t discuss this time but that have been discussed previously on some Luddites episodes — what is valuable now is the API and the data that users generate, not software. To a large degree, companies now give away the software for free, even open sourcing it, in order to attract developers to the ecosystem and acquire users that will generate data and subscribe to services through the API. It is hard to see how any new project can achieve success under the GPL when there is so much permissively licensed code available. Linux is thriving because it has so much momentum behind it, but any new project with potential will probably get passed by by a permissively licensed alternative that companies like Google will dump resources into. Companies don’t want to devote resources to any GPL project because of the viral qualities Ikey mentioned. The only times I see the GPL used outside of Linux and the core Linux projects like the GNU tools and GNOME is when it is part of a dual license — a developer maintains an open source project under the GPL to attract attention and offers to re-license the project for commercial use for a fee.
> spent a while criticizing GPL v3 adn copy left without explaining why (that I could understand) he uses GPL v2 which is also considered copy left.
I did explain the virulent nature of GPL3.
Yes, you mentioned that GPL3 forces GPL2 code to be upgraded to GPL3 (I found this blog post useful in understanding that issue: https://nikmav.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-perils-of-lgplv3.html), but that is not what I was referring to in my sentence that you quote.
I was referring to your use of GPL v2. Many people consider the GPL v2 to be virulent and restrictive as well (I would say that some of the points you and Joe make about copy left not being a free license apply to the GPL v2 and LGPL v2.1). So why do you use GPL v2 / LPGL v2.1 for C binaries / libraries like Budgie rather than a permissive license like MIT? Joe started off the discussion by asking this and your answer was that it was a habit, but that doesn’t seem like much of a reason.
For what it’s worth, I am still curious to know why Budgie is licensed under GPL2.0/LPGL2.1 rather than MIT or BSD.
Felim, totally agree with your stand on GPL !
How about makersupport.com as an alternative to patreon?
Good to hear Ikey moving from the horrid chome to Firefox. 🙂