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).
You must log in or # to comment.
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.
alpine is technically cool with how lightweight it is but it being non gnu is a big bummer really
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.
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.
I love that alternative copypasta where the alpine user corrects the gnu/linux guy and he just fucking dies.
I once saw someone in the irc channel jokingly refer to Alpine as Alpine linux pine. Now when I goto the website, all my mind reads is Alpine Linux Pine Linux…
