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).

  • grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 day ago

    And that’s why Alpine should be considered harmful. Copyleft is important, folks! musl and BusyBox are just ways to facilitate even more enshittification, Tivoization, and other corporate abuse than the GPLv2 kernel already does by itself.

    • starbrite@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      I agree with copyleft and the fsf’s core ideas, but also understand some people just don’t like gnu, due to just not wanting to call it “gnu/linux” and stallman being kind of weird

    • renzev@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Huh, good point, I never stopped to consider what licenses are behind Alpine.

      I agree with your point that pushover licenses should not be the way forward (I personally license all of my major projects with GPLv3 only), but I’ll still keep using alpine because I like it from a technical standpoint.

    • vivendi@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Based and GNU pilled

      This is why I license my work under GPLv3+ (not going to link my codeberg/GH because I’m not fucking stupid)

    • orsetto@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 day ago

      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

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        32
        ·
        1 day ago

        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.

        • ubergeek77@lemmy.ubergeek77.chat
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          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.

          • grue@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            1 day ago

            Alpine and its components are fully open source, you can make whatever changes you want to them.

            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.

          • ozymandias117@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            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

            • unhrpetby@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              1 day ago

              … Alpine is designed to be friendly to corporations who want to lock down their devices and prevent you from modifying them.

              “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.

    • HStone32@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      Alpine should be considered harmful

      that’s a rather anti-liberal sentiment coming from what one would assume to be a mostly pro-liberal open source community.