When did Linux kernel become libre software? [closed]Was Hurd kernel created as a modification of Linux kernel?What was the first Linux distribution?Since when are Linux drivers loaded as kernel modules?When did 64K RAM become about as cheap as 16K?When did README files start showing up in software?Why does the Motorola 68000 series require a kernel to be specified during Linux installation?When did 1200bps become the modal speed of installed modems?When did green LEDs become as cheap as red LEDs?When did “Zen” in computer programming become a thing?Refactoring Old Printer Driver for Current Linux KernelWas Hurd kernel created as a modification of Linux kernel?What was the first Linux distribution?
How do internally carried IR missiles acquire a lock?
Is there a term for the belief that "if it's legal, it's moral"?
Text alignment in tikzpicture
How much steel armor can you wear and still be able to swim?
Cut the gold chain
Explicit song lyrics checker
What is the meaning of "понаехать"?
Helping ease my back pain by studying 13 hours everyday , even weekends
Should I include an appendix for inessential, yet related worldbuilding to my story?
I just entered the USA without passport control at Atlanta airport
Find the common ancestor between two nodes of a tree
What does it cost to buy a tavern?
Greeting with "Ho"
Warnings using NDSolve on wave PDE. "Using maximum number of grid points" , "Warning: scaled local spatial error estimate"
Why does std::string_view create a dangling view in a ternary expression?
What is the "ls" directory in my home directory?
I found a password with hashcat, but it doesn't work
Did the CIA blow up a Siberian pipeline in 1982?
When Bnei Yisroel travelled in the midbar, what happened on Shabbos?
What was the flower of Empress Taytu?
Boss wants someone else to lead a project based on the idea I presented to him
Explain why a line can never intersect a plane in exactly two points.
How can I ping multiple IP addresses at the same time?
What mathematical theory is required for high frequency trading?
When did Linux kernel become libre software? [closed]
Was Hurd kernel created as a modification of Linux kernel?What was the first Linux distribution?Since when are Linux drivers loaded as kernel modules?When did 64K RAM become about as cheap as 16K?When did README files start showing up in software?Why does the Motorola 68000 series require a kernel to be specified during Linux installation?When did 1200bps become the modal speed of installed modems?When did green LEDs become as cheap as red LEDs?When did “Zen” in computer programming become a thing?Refactoring Old Printer Driver for Current Linux KernelWas Hurd kernel created as a modification of Linux kernel?What was the first Linux distribution?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
In this video, Richard Stallman claimed that Linus Torvalds created Linux kernel as a proprietary software and then liberated it ('liberated' is the term Stallman used).
Assuming so, when was the Linux kernel made libre by Linus Torvalds?
The Linux article on English Wikipedia says as of now:
Torvalds initiated a switch from his original license, which
prohibited commercial redistribution, to the GNU GPL.
but the source doesn't mention a specific year like 1992.
history linux
edited Jun 5 at 19:20
ilkkachu
1033
asked Jun 2 at 20:08
JohnDoeaJohnDoea
317210
closed as off-topic by Raffzahn, Tomas By, Wilson, Ave, another-dave Jun 3 at 23:41
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question does not appear to be about retrocomputing, within the scope defined in the help center." – Raffzahn, Tomas By, Wilson, Ave, another-dave
|
show 3 more comments
In this video, Richard Stallman claimed that Linus Torvalds created Linux kernel as a proprietary software and then liberated it ('liberated' is the term Stallman used).
Assuming so, when was the Linux kernel made libre by Linus Torvalds?
The Linux article on English Wikipedia says as of now:
Torvalds initiated a switch from his original license, which
prohibited commercial redistribution, to the GNU GPL.
but the source doesn't mention a specific year like 1992.
history linux
edited Jun 5 at 19:20
ilkkachu
1033
asked Jun 2 at 20:08
JohnDoeaJohnDoea
317210
closed as off-topic by Raffzahn, Tomas By, Wilson, Ave, another-dave Jun 3 at 23:41
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question does not appear to be about retrocomputing, within the scope defined in the help center." – Raffzahn, Tomas By, Wilson, Ave, another-dave
8
In what way is this question off-topic?
– UncleBod
Jun 3 at 7:19
2
The title of this question was better before the edit: "libre" is not an English word, but "liberated" is.
– Aaron F
Jun 3 at 14:38
14
@AaronF: "Libre" is a jargon term, just like "software". It is used as an alternative to "free", because "free" in English has two meanings, whereas Romance languages distinguish between "libre" and "gratuit" (ex. French). And since most of the world understands Spanish, French, or Italian, and "libre" is also understood by English speakers via words like "liberty" or indeed "liberate", it has stuck around as a language-neutral, universal way of referring to "Free Software" without the confusion about the meaning of "Free".
– Jörg W Mittag
Jun 3 at 14:55
11
@AaronF That comment demonstrates precisely the misunderstanding while led to the term "libre software" being introduced: it is not "free because you don't have to pay for it"; it is free because you are free to use, modify, and distribute it. A common description is "free as in free speech, not free as in free beer". It has been "liberated" from the control of a single owner, and users have been granted "freedom" over what to do with it. Plenty of software is available without charge, but with restrictions on what you can legally do with it, so this is an important distinction.
– IMSoP
Jun 3 at 16:04
4
"Free as in mattress, or free as in puppy?"
– Russell Borogove
Jun 3 at 16:48
|
show 3 more comments
In this video, Richard Stallman claimed that Linus Torvalds created Linux kernel as a proprietary software and then liberated it ('liberated' is the term Stallman used).
Assuming so, when was the Linux kernel made libre by Linus Torvalds?
The Linux article on English Wikipedia says as of now:
Torvalds initiated a switch from his original license, which
prohibited commercial redistribution, to the GNU GPL.
but the source doesn't mention a specific year like 1992.
history linux
edited Jun 5 at 19:20
ilkkachu
1033
asked Jun 2 at 20:08
JohnDoeaJohnDoea
317210
In this video, Richard Stallman claimed that Linus Torvalds created Linux kernel as a proprietary software and then liberated it ('liberated' is the term Stallman used).
Assuming so, when was the Linux kernel made libre by Linus Torvalds?
The Linux article on English Wikipedia says as of now:
Torvalds initiated a switch from his original license, which
prohibited commercial redistribution, to the GNU GPL.
but the source doesn't mention a specific year like 1992.
history linux
history linux
edited Jun 5 at 19:20
ilkkachu
1033
asked Jun 2 at 20:08
JohnDoeaJohnDoea
317210
edited Jun 5 at 19:20
ilkkachu
1033
asked Jun 2 at 20:08
JohnDoeaJohnDoea
317210
edited Jun 5 at 19:20
ilkkachu
1033
edited Jun 5 at 19:20
ilkkachu
1033
edited Jun 5 at 19:20
ilkkachu
1033
1033
asked Jun 2 at 20:08
JohnDoeaJohnDoea
317210
asked Jun 2 at 20:08
JohnDoeaJohnDoea
317210
asked Jun 2 at 20:08
JohnDoeaJohnDoea
317210
317210
closed as off-topic by Raffzahn, Tomas By, Wilson, Ave, another-dave Jun 3 at 23:41
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question does not appear to be about retrocomputing, within the scope defined in the help center." – Raffzahn, Tomas By, Wilson, Ave, another-dave
closed as off-topic by Raffzahn, Tomas By, Wilson, Ave, another-dave Jun 3 at 23:41
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question does not appear to be about retrocomputing, within the scope defined in the help center." – Raffzahn, Tomas By, Wilson, Ave, another-dave
8
In what way is this question off-topic?
– UncleBod
Jun 3 at 7:19
2
The title of this question was better before the edit: "libre" is not an English word, but "liberated" is.
– Aaron F
Jun 3 at 14:38
14
@AaronF: "Libre" is a jargon term, just like "software". It is used as an alternative to "free", because "free" in English has two meanings, whereas Romance languages distinguish between "libre" and "gratuit" (ex. French). And since most of the world understands Spanish, French, or Italian, and "libre" is also understood by English speakers via words like "liberty" or indeed "liberate", it has stuck around as a language-neutral, universal way of referring to "Free Software" without the confusion about the meaning of "Free".
– Jörg W Mittag
Jun 3 at 14:55
11
@AaronF That comment demonstrates precisely the misunderstanding while led to the term "libre software" being introduced: it is not "free because you don't have to pay for it"; it is free because you are free to use, modify, and distribute it. A common description is "free as in free speech, not free as in free beer". It has been "liberated" from the control of a single owner, and users have been granted "freedom" over what to do with it. Plenty of software is available without charge, but with restrictions on what you can legally do with it, so this is an important distinction.
– IMSoP
Jun 3 at 16:04
4
"Free as in mattress, or free as in puppy?"
– Russell Borogove
Jun 3 at 16:48
|
show 3 more comments
8
In what way is this question off-topic?
– UncleBod
Jun 3 at 7:19
2
The title of this question was better before the edit: "libre" is not an English word, but "liberated" is.
– Aaron F
Jun 3 at 14:38
14
@AaronF: "Libre" is a jargon term, just like "software". It is used as an alternative to "free", because "free" in English has two meanings, whereas Romance languages distinguish between "libre" and "gratuit" (ex. French). And since most of the world understands Spanish, French, or Italian, and "libre" is also understood by English speakers via words like "liberty" or indeed "liberate", it has stuck around as a language-neutral, universal way of referring to "Free Software" without the confusion about the meaning of "Free".
– Jörg W Mittag
Jun 3 at 14:55
11
@AaronF That comment demonstrates precisely the misunderstanding while led to the term "libre software" being introduced: it is not "free because you don't have to pay for it"; it is free because you are free to use, modify, and distribute it. A common description is "free as in free speech, not free as in free beer". It has been "liberated" from the control of a single owner, and users have been granted "freedom" over what to do with it. Plenty of software is available without charge, but with restrictions on what you can legally do with it, so this is an important distinction.
– IMSoP
Jun 3 at 16:04
4
"Free as in mattress, or free as in puppy?"
– Russell Borogove
Jun 3 at 16:48
8
8
In what way is this question off-topic?
– UncleBod
Jun 3 at 7:19
In what way is this question off-topic?
– UncleBod
Jun 3 at 7:19
2
2
The title of this question was better before the edit: "libre" is not an English word, but "liberated" is.
– Aaron F
Jun 3 at 14:38
The title of this question was better before the edit: "libre" is not an English word, but "liberated" is.
– Aaron F
Jun 3 at 14:38
14
14
@AaronF: "Libre" is a jargon term, just like "software". It is used as an alternative to "free", because "free" in English has two meanings, whereas Romance languages distinguish between "libre" and "gratuit" (ex. French). And since most of the world understands Spanish, French, or Italian, and "libre" is also understood by English speakers via words like "liberty" or indeed "liberate", it has stuck around as a language-neutral, universal way of referring to "Free Software" without the confusion about the meaning of "Free".
– Jörg W Mittag
Jun 3 at 14:55
@AaronF: "Libre" is a jargon term, just like "software". It is used as an alternative to "free", because "free" in English has two meanings, whereas Romance languages distinguish between "libre" and "gratuit" (ex. French). And since most of the world understands Spanish, French, or Italian, and "libre" is also understood by English speakers via words like "liberty" or indeed "liberate", it has stuck around as a language-neutral, universal way of referring to "Free Software" without the confusion about the meaning of "Free".
– Jörg W Mittag
Jun 3 at 14:55
11
11
@AaronF That comment demonstrates precisely the misunderstanding while led to the term "libre software" being introduced: it is not "free because you don't have to pay for it"; it is free because you are free to use, modify, and distribute it. A common description is "free as in free speech, not free as in free beer". It has been "liberated" from the control of a single owner, and users have been granted "freedom" over what to do with it. Plenty of software is available without charge, but with restrictions on what you can legally do with it, so this is an important distinction.
– IMSoP
Jun 3 at 16:04
@AaronF That comment demonstrates precisely the misunderstanding while led to the term "libre software" being introduced: it is not "free because you don't have to pay for it"; it is free because you are free to use, modify, and distribute it. A common description is "free as in free speech, not free as in free beer". It has been "liberated" from the control of a single owner, and users have been granted "freedom" over what to do with it. Plenty of software is available without charge, but with restrictions on what you can legally do with it, so this is an important distinction.
– IMSoP
Jun 3 at 16:04
4
4
"Free as in mattress, or free as in puppy?"
– Russell Borogove
Jun 3 at 16:48
"Free as in mattress, or free as in puppy?"
– Russell Borogove
Jun 3 at 16:48
|
show 3 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
February 1992 it changed to GPL license.
Change to GPL is notified in 0.12 release, February 1992
First GPL release 0.99, December 1992
answered Jun 2 at 20:15
JustmeJustme
1,074310
You can consult release 0.99 at this mirror
– aloisdg
Jun 3 at 13:22
1
Your first link says "0.92", but your second says "0.12"
– IMSoP
Jun 3 at 16:13
2
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.
– dirkt
Jun 3 at 16:47
1
@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")
– IMSoP
Jun 3 at 18:01
1
@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.
– IMSoP
Jun 3 at 18:03
|
show 4 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
February 1992 it changed to GPL license.
Change to GPL is notified in 0.12 release, February 1992
First GPL release 0.99, December 1992
answered Jun 2 at 20:15
JustmeJustme
1,074310
You can consult release 0.99 at this mirror
– aloisdg
Jun 3 at 13:22
1
Your first link says "0.92", but your second says "0.12"
– IMSoP
Jun 3 at 16:13
2
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.
– dirkt
Jun 3 at 16:47
1
@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")
– IMSoP
Jun 3 at 18:01
1
@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.
– IMSoP
Jun 3 at 18:03
|
show 4 more comments
February 1992 it changed to GPL license.
Change to GPL is notified in 0.12 release, February 1992
First GPL release 0.99, December 1992
answered Jun 2 at 20:15
JustmeJustme
1,074310
You can consult release 0.99 at this mirror
– aloisdg
Jun 3 at 13:22
1
Your first link says "0.92", but your second says "0.12"
– IMSoP
Jun 3 at 16:13
2
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.
– dirkt
Jun 3 at 16:47
1
@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")
– IMSoP
Jun 3 at 18:01
1
@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.
– IMSoP
Jun 3 at 18:03
|
show 4 more comments
February 1992 it changed to GPL license.
Change to GPL is notified in 0.12 release, February 1992
First GPL release 0.99, December 1992
answered Jun 2 at 20:15
JustmeJustme
1,074310
February 1992 it changed to GPL license.
Change to GPL is notified in 0.12 release, February 1992
First GPL release 0.99, December 1992
answered Jun 2 at 20:15
JustmeJustme
1,074310
edited Jun 3 at 18:17
answered Jun 2 at 20:15
JustmeJustme
1,074310
answered Jun 2 at 20:15
JustmeJustme
1,074310
answered Jun 2 at 20:15
JustmeJustme
1,074310
1,074310
You can consult release 0.99 at this mirror
– aloisdg
Jun 3 at 13:22
1
Your first link says "0.92", but your second says "0.12"
– IMSoP
Jun 3 at 16:13
2
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.
– dirkt
Jun 3 at 16:47
1
@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")
– IMSoP
Jun 3 at 18:01
1
@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.
– IMSoP
Jun 3 at 18:03
|
show 4 more comments
You can consult release 0.99 at this mirror
– aloisdg
Jun 3 at 13:22
1
Your first link says "0.92", but your second says "0.12"
– IMSoP
Jun 3 at 16:13
2
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.
– dirkt
Jun 3 at 16:47
1
@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")
– IMSoP
Jun 3 at 18:01
1
@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.
– IMSoP
Jun 3 at 18:03
You can consult release 0.99 at this mirror
– aloisdg
Jun 3 at 13:22
You can consult release 0.99 at this mirror
– aloisdg
Jun 3 at 13:22
1
1
Your first link says "0.92", but your second says "0.12"
– IMSoP
Jun 3 at 16:13
Your first link says "0.92", but your second says "0.12"
– IMSoP
Jun 3 at 16:13
2
2
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.
– dirkt
Jun 3 at 16:47
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.
– dirkt
Jun 3 at 16:47
1
1
@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")
– IMSoP
Jun 3 at 18:01
@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")
– IMSoP
Jun 3 at 18:01
1
1
@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.
– IMSoP
Jun 3 at 18:03
@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.
– IMSoP
Jun 3 at 18:03
|
show 4 more comments
8
In what way is this question off-topic?
– UncleBod
Jun 3 at 7:19
2
The title of this question was better before the edit: "libre" is not an English word, but "liberated" is.
– Aaron F
Jun 3 at 14:38
14
@AaronF: "Libre" is a jargon term, just like "software". It is used as an alternative to "free", because "free" in English has two meanings, whereas Romance languages distinguish between "libre" and "gratuit" (ex. French). And since most of the world understands Spanish, French, or Italian, and "libre" is also understood by English speakers via words like "liberty" or indeed "liberate", it has stuck around as a language-neutral, universal way of referring to "Free Software" without the confusion about the meaning of "Free".
– Jörg W Mittag
Jun 3 at 14:55
11
@AaronF That comment demonstrates precisely the misunderstanding while led to the term "libre software" being introduced: it is not "free because you don't have to pay for it"; it is free because you are free to use, modify, and distribute it. A common description is "free as in free speech, not free as in free beer". It has been "liberated" from the control of a single owner, and users have been granted "freedom" over what to do with it. Plenty of software is available without charge, but with restrictions on what you can legally do with it, so this is an important distinction.
– IMSoP
Jun 3 at 16:04
4
"Free as in mattress, or free as in puppy?"
– Russell Borogove
Jun 3 at 16:48