Libre software selling whatever they can is good for maintaining development.
If the Linux kernel ever changed to AGPLv3 I would for sure buy one GNU/Linux stable release each year to make up for corporations that would ban Linux from their network due to AGPL3 legal obligations.
For the sake of basic security, there should be a lot more corporate adoption of OpenBSD and FreeBSD. Company networks would be a lot more secure than using Linux due to Linux’s schizophrenic nature. Ask a full time BSD sysadmin their view on Linux.
corporations that would ban Linux from their network
You can’t change the license retroactively. Corporations would likely hard-fork the kernel at the last GPL2 commit and move it to a restricted but compliant access model like Red Hat did.
You can change the license moving forward though it takes a tremendous amount of effort.
Only rich companies have dedicated full time kernel developers. The vast majority literally take full advantage of the fact that the kernel is free (gratis). And any changes they make to the GPL2 kernel is still subject to open source disclosure.
I believe Torvalds has publicly stated that he wouldn’t support a move to GPL3, let alone AGPL.
Libre software selling whatever they can is good for maintaining development.
If the Linux kernel ever changed to AGPLv3 I would for sure buy one GNU/Linux stable release each year to make up for corporations that would ban Linux from their network due to AGPL3 legal obligations.
It’s proprietary.
Prob those companies will go back to windows server or freebsd lol.
For the sake of basic security, there should be a lot more corporate adoption of OpenBSD and FreeBSD. Company networks would be a lot more secure than using Linux due to Linux’s schizophrenic nature. Ask a full time BSD sysadmin their view on Linux.
Honest question: to what are you referring by “Linux’s schizophrenic nature”?
You can’t change the license retroactively. Corporations would likely hard-fork the kernel at the last GPL2 commit and move it to a restricted but compliant access model like Red Hat did.
You can change the license moving forward though it takes a tremendous amount of effort.
Only rich companies have dedicated full time kernel developers. The vast majority literally take full advantage of the fact that the kernel is free (gratis). And any changes they make to the GPL2 kernel is still subject to open source disclosure.
I believe Torvalds has publicly stated that he wouldn’t support a move to GPL3, let alone AGPL.