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.
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.
Is this true? This doesn’t sound true.
https://blog.opensource.org/
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?
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.