Timeline for When did the Linux kernel become libre software?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 28, 2021 at 8:34 | comment | added | IMSoP | @another-dave Whatever terminology you use, the change from restricting to allowing commercial distribution is a hugely significant moment in the history of the project. The question could be reworded to not mention Stallman at all, and still be interesting (but for some reason your comment was under the answer, which already doesn't mention him). | |
| Aug 27, 2021 at 23:24 | comment | added | dave | @IMSop - true, but asking when Linux met some Stallman-defined criteria implicitly ascribes authority to such criteria. | |
| Aug 27, 2021 at 10:55 | comment | added | IMSoP | @another-dave No, but he has authority over his own speech. Right now, neither the question nor the answer uses "proprietary" or "liberated" other than in a quote from Stallman; the necessary context for understanding that quote is how he chooses to use those words, not who else agrees or disagrees with him. | |
| Aug 26, 2021 at 19:41 | comment | added | dave | Stallman is not a neutral arbiter of anything, and in particular he has no authority over the English language. | |
| Jun 3, 2019 at 20:17 | comment | added | IMSoP | @dirkt You or I might disagree, but that's how Richard Stallman and the FSF see the world: software is either "free" or it is "non-free". Calling a license that makes the source available but restricts its use "proprietary" may seem an exaggeration, but Stallman isn't particularly known for his subtlety or acceptance of grey areas. | |
| Jun 3, 2019 at 19:06 | comment | added | dirkt | @IMSoP: That's a very curious definition of "liberated", but be that as it may, it still doesn't make software with this restriction "proprietary". | |
| Jun 3, 2019 at 18:19 | comment | added | Justme | @IMSoP my apologies, the 0.12 was correct all along of course, for some reason I had typed it incorrectly. | |
| Jun 3, 2019 at 18:17 | history | edited | Justme | CC BY-SA 4.0 | Fix typo. Sorry for confusion |
| Jun 3, 2019 at 18:03 | comment | added | IMSoP | @dirkt As far as Richard Stallman is concerned, software which you are not free to distribute for money is not Free Software. Consequently, removing that restriction "liberated" the software from that constraint. | |
| Jun 3, 2019 at 18:01 | comment | added | IMSoP | @Justme I'm not sure why you reverted it; it seemed a valid improvement to me. Either way, 0.12 is the correct version number, and the quote that was edited in is what Wikipedia cites as a source. ("When Torvalds released version 0.12 in February 1992, he adopted the GNU General Public License version 2 (GPLv2) over his previous self-drafted license, which had not permitted commercial redistribution. cite") | |
| S Jun 3, 2019 at 17:52 | history | rollback | Justme | Rollback to Revision 2 - Edit approval overridden by post owner or moderator | |
| Jun 3, 2019 at 17:52 | comment | added | Justme | @IMSoP That is not my answer, someone edited it and I refused it. It still got edited. | |
| Jun 3, 2019 at 16:47 | comment | added | dirkt | And this also means that at least the change at this time can't be interpreted as "liberating" (in the Stallman sense) Linux - removing the "you may not distribute it for money" condition clearly means it wasn't "proprietary" before. | |
| Jun 3, 2019 at 16:13 | comment | added | IMSoP | Your first link says "0.92", but your second says "0.12" | |
| Jun 3, 2019 at 16:00 | history | suggested | aloisdg | CC BY-SA 4.0 | Add direct quote |
| Jun 3, 2019 at 13:22 | comment | added | aloisdg | You can consult release 0.99 at this mirror | |
| Jun 3, 2019 at 13:13 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jun 3, 2019 at 17:52 | |||||
| Jun 3, 2019 at 5:25 | history | edited | Justme | CC BY-SA 4.0 | Added links |
| Jun 2, 2019 at 21:20 | vote | accept | CommunityBot | ||
| Jun 2, 2019 at 20:15 | history | answered | Justme | CC BY-SA 4.0 |