I don't think Linux is "Open Core"
Posted Nov 10, 2010 13:28 UTC (Wed) by bkuhn
In reply to: FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core"
Parent article: FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core"
There's no doubt that “Open Core” is a poorly defined term. However, I've come to the conclusion that whatever “Open Core” is, it is at least a special case of proprietary relicensing, whereby one entity has a monopoly on the relicensing of a codebase under non-copyleft terms.
Linux is not this. It's very bad that Linux includes so much proprietary software as part of its default distribution, and I am very grateful that @lxoliva maintains Linux Libre to help document how much proprietary code is in Linux, and to give users who value software freedom an alternative version of Linux that's 100% Free Software.
However, I think that @lxoliva's use of the term “Open Core” here only serves to make an ill-defined term even more confusing.
Disclaimer: While I do serve on the Board of Directors of the FSF, the comments here reflect only my personal opinion, not the official opinion of FSF.
to post comments)