Post by hubbleOn Thu, 27 Mar 2025 08:32:45 +0100
Post by Parodper1.
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