Explanation for newbies: The GNU/Linux copypasta is an argument made by Richard Stallman that the operating system should be referred to as “GNU/Linux” or “GNU+Linux” because linux is just the kernel and what makes it useful are the various GNU programs and libraries like coreutils and glibc.
Alpine Linux is a linux distribution that ships without any GNU software (though it can be installed using the package manager).
I understand what argument could be made against musl, which is licensed under MIT, but what’s wrong with GPLv2?
I remember Torvald saying something about not wanting to change the kernel’s license to GPLv3, but I’ve never understood the differences
GPLv3 is resistant to Tivoization. GPLv2 is not.
TL;DR: “Tivoization” means giving you the source code for the firmware of a particular device, but using DRM to prevent you from actually being able to make changes and run that modified code on the device.
Considering that the entire Free Software movement started because Xerox wouldn’t let RMS improve the MIT AI Lab’s laser printer, you should be able to see how DRM clearly runs counter to everything the GPL is trying to accomplish.
I am not up to date on all these license debates, but don’t you think equating Alpine Linux to “locked down DRM” is just a bit of a logical reach?
Alpine and its components are fully open source, you can make whatever changes you want to them. I am not seeing the argument here.
Who is “you?” That’s the important question.
There’s always this big debate about whether GPL or BSD licensing provides “more freedom,” but that’s the wrong way to look at it. The correct way to look at it is that copyleft licenses provide freedom for end users by prohibiting developers from obstructing their freedom, while permissive licenses provide freedom for developers by permitting them to restrict access to the code for downstream users.
Using permissive licenses in Alpine doesn’t make Alpine itself not “fully open source,” but it does mean that Alpine helps facilitate non-Free downstream uses. In other words, somebody could take Alpine, customize it for a device, and then sell that device to the public without making any code available except for a kernel that they wouldn’t even be able to use on said device because of DRM. I’m not okay with that.
Ah I see, that makes sense. Thanks for explaining, I learned something from your comment and the other one.
Their statement is that Alpine is designed such that it is friendlier to corporations who want to lock down their devices and prevent you from modifying them.
You cannot use coreutils and have a DRM locked down device.
You can use Alpine w/ musl + busybox and make a DRM locked down device
Alpine’s licensing favors large corporation’s rights in preventing the user from modifying their device
Operating systems using coreutils favor the end user’s rights
“Designed to” assumes intent. Alpine is absolutely designed to be Small, Simple, and Secure. Using busybox instead of the GNU coreutils is a means to this end. Using musl instead of glibc is a means to this end.
On the about page they list why they use these tools. The licensing is not listed at all.
Fixed, thanks