Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Copyleft licenses are not "restrictive"

drewdevault.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–16 of 16 posts

Re: Copyleft licenses are not "restrictive"

#11

Post by karmakaze »

moody__ wrote: post #10
karmakaze wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An MIT license requires no propagation of software changes. I would say that a Copyleft licenses enforce software to be out-in-world. The lawyers needed to find out how not to propagate changes. This reverse duality depends on whether the 'software' propagated is that which uses licensed software or evolution in public of the licensed software itself. If Linux itself was MIT licensed we would have a much messier worl…

We already live in the world of fragmented, semi-working, partially compatible platforms. The openness did not make this better. Take one look at what is going on in the risc-v world with nearly every soc having its own fork of the linux kernel, hacked up for specifically their board. ARM has the same issue to a lesser extent. You want to try bcachefs on your ARM NAS board? good luck.

Compared to what though? Every SoC having its own entire OS implementation derived from some closed source origin that way back when started from some MIT licensed base. It probably wouldn't even have a bcachefs to every try on it.

Re: Copyleft licenses are not "restrictive"

#12

Post by snvzz »

moody__ wrote: post #10
karmakaze wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An MIT license requires no propagation of software changes. I would say that a Copyleft licenses enforce software to be out-in-world. The lawyers needed to find out how not to propagate changes. This reverse duality depends on whether the 'software' propagated is that which uses licensed software or evolution in public of the licensed software itself. If Linux itself was MIT licensed we would have a much messier worl…

We already live in the world of fragmented, semi-working, partially compatible platforms. The openness did not make this better. Take one look at what is going on in the risc-v world with nearly every soc having its own fork of the linux kernel, hacked up for specifically their board. ARM has the same issue to a lesser extent. You want to try bcachefs on your ARM NAS board? good luck.

>Take one look at what is going on in the risc-v world with nearly every soc having its own fork of the linux kernel

There aren't that many RISC-V Linux-capable SoCs out there, and the ones I know all can boot a generic Linux (relying on SBI for e.g. timers or console i/o), and have ongoing efforts for upstreaming drivers.

It's a much more serious problem on ARM, which does not have anywhere as much platform nor boot standarization.

Re: Copyleft licenses are not "restrictive"

#13

Post by moody__ »

karmakaze wrote: post #11
moody__ wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We already live in the world of fragmented, semi-working, partially compatible platforms. The openness did not make this better. Take one look at what is going on in the risc-v world with nearly every soc having its own fork of the linux kernel, hacked up for specifically their board. ARM has the same issue to a lesser extent. You want to try bcachefs on your ARM NAS board? good luck.

Compared to what though? Every SoC having its own entire OS implementation derived from some closed source origin that way back when started from some MIT licensed base. It probably wouldn't even have a bcachefs to every try on it.

Apologies I typed soc but really I was trying to talk about sbc's. The type of little boards you find running linux. As far as I know there is not currently (or at least as of a few years ago) risc-v sbc you could get that boots off of nothing but mainline.

Re: Copyleft licenses are not "restrictive"

#14

Post by moody__ »

snvzz wrote: post #12
moody__ wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We already live in the world of fragmented, semi-working, partially compatible platforms. The openness did not make this better. Take one look at what is going on in the risc-v world with nearly every soc having its own fork of the linux kernel, hacked up for specifically their board. ARM has the same issue to a lesser extent. You want to try bcachefs on your ARM NAS board? good luck.

>Take one look at what is going on in the risc-v world with nearly every soc having its own fork of the linux kernel There aren't that many RISC-V Linux-capable SoCs out there, and the ones I know all can boot a generic Linux (relying on SBI for e.g. timers or console i/o), and have ongoing efforts for upstreaming drivers. It's a much more serious problem on ARM, which does not have anywhere as much platform nor boot…

I was not aware of a risc-v board that could boot with nothing but mainline, could you link me to one that doesn't require any third party code to use?

Re: Copyleft licenses are not "restrictive"

#15

Post by snvzz »

moody__ wrote: post #14
snvzz wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Take one look at what is going on in the risc-v world with nearly every soc having its own fork of the linux kernel There aren't that many RISC-V Linux-capable SoCs out there, and the ones I know all can boot a generic Linux (relying on SBI for e.g. timers or console i/o), and have ongoing efforts for upstreaming drivers. It's a much more serious problem on ARM, which does not have anywhere as much platform nor boot…

I was not aware of a risc-v board that could boot with nothing but mainline, could you link me to one that doesn't require any third party code to use?

Anything based on JH7110, of which VisionFive 2 is most mature.

As well as anything else in opensbi upstream.

Re: Copyleft licenses are not "restrictive"

#16

Post by moody__ »

snvzz wrote: post #15
moody__ wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was not aware of a risc-v board that could boot with nothing but mainline, could you link me to one that doesn't require any third party code to use?

Anything based on JH7110, of which VisionFive 2 is most mature. As well as anything else in opensbi upstream.

Thanks, I'll give that a look.
Post reply on HN