El 2025-03-27 05:22, hubble escribió: > On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 08:32:45 +0100 > Parodper <parod...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> O 26/03/25 ás 05:03, estebanmo...@riseup.net escribiu: >> > >> > Acá hay se nota mucha confusión: >> > >> > 1. >> > >> > Ningún lenguaje de programación obliga a que el resultado tenga una >> > licencia, es decir que no se necesita la licencia del MIT para hacer >> > un programa en Rust >> >> Entre comillas, puesto que los compiladores incluyen, en el programa >> final, código suyo. GCC tiene una cláusula en su licencia >> (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-3.1-faq.html) para evitar >> que los programas compilados con el tengan que ser GPL. >> > > Esa es la razón por la que el kernel linux es libre. Richard Stallman (el que > creó GCC para un sistema operativo que quería que fuera libre (GNU)) obligó a > Linus Torvalds a que el kernel linux fuera libre por usar su compilador. > > Y sí, lo obligó, Linus no estaba muy de acuerdo en un principio en eso. > > Al menos eso es lo que se leía en los grupos de noticias por aquella época. No se donde viste eso, pero las declaraciones de Torvalds te contradicen, y lo cito, en inglés: "So that original copyright license was just me writing things up, there was pretty obviously no actual lawyerese or anything there.
The two important parts were the "full source has to be available" and "no money may be involved". The note about copyright notices was because I tended to hate the copyright boilerplate verbiage at the top of every single source file, so I knew there weren't all that many notices scattered in the sources themselves. The "no money" part came about because I had been annoyed with (being a rather poor student) having to pay something like $169 USD for Minix, and that had been a fair amount of money to me. I felt that part of the point was to make something available to others in my situation, and that it really should be "free" in the actual money sense. So for me, "free" as in "gratis" was actually an earlier concern than the whole "free as in freedom". I still happen to believe that being available even if you're a poor person who really doesn't have any money at all is at least as important as anything else, because that's a basic availability issue for many people." Luego agrega que el cambio de licencia fue porque, lo cito de nuevo, en ingles: "Part of it was also because I felt that the availability of gcc was very important to the project, so picking the GPLv2 as a homage to gcc was appropriate. Put another way: I still think that the availability issue is very important. But I think the GPL makes that a non-issue in practice, so making the license to be about the money side is pointless. And clearly _allowing_ the commercial side has been a very good thing for everybody." Entonces nadie obligó a Torvalds, simplemente lo hizo como un homenaje a la licencia del GCC y porque quería eliminar la restricción de uso comercial que tenía el kernel original, además de que pensó que la GPL garantizaba que Linux podía seguir siendo gratis. Fuente: https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/business/linus-torvalds-on-early-linux-history-gpl-license-and-money
