>While Google is allowing that.

And while Linus allows Linux to be open source. A benefit of open source is that you can fork it if upstream decides to stop development or go closed source.

>This doesn't work with GrapheneOS.

GrapheneOS can use free drivers too. It literally is using Linux.

▲

fsflover 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> And while Linus allows Linux to be open source.

Linus can't close the kernel. He would need to ask all contributors for a signed agreement for that. This is the benefit of GPL.

> GrapheneOS can use free drivers too. It literally is using Linux.

Except there is no device with free drivers that it supports. They just refuse to support Librem or Pinephone without a good reason. (I strongly disagree with their "security" arguments.)

> A benefit of open source is that you can fork it if upstream decides to stop development or go closed source

Android is already semi-closed (see this submission). Are GrapheneOS developers forking it? (No)

▲

charcircuit 3 hours ago | parent [-]

>Linus can't close the kernel.

That's not how it works. GPL only prevents old versions from becoming closed source. If Linus added code to the kernel which required a $100k license to redistribute then people could no longer freely distribute the code of the kernel. People could not freely distribute compile kernels because they would need that license. GPL doesn't magically make all licensing issues go away. He could also make a required kernel module that was not GPL licensed that Linux could require to operate.

>Except there is no device with free drivers that it supports.

Having a working system providing competitive value to others is much more important.

>They just refuse to support Librem or Pinephone without a good reason.

The good reason is that those devices can't provide industry standard security.

	▲	fsflover 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> GPL only prevents old versions from becoming closed source. This is false, https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingWithGPL > Having a working system providing competitive value to others is much more important. I don't consider dependence on Google as "working for the users". > The good reason is that those devices can't provide industry standard security. Obeying Google is not "security", even if it's the industry standard.