[abrambleninja]

The freedom for the user that comes with using Linux as a result of it being GPL-licensed is that entities have to contribute any changes they make to the kernel back to the community if they intend to distribute their modified, potentially improved kernel. This results in a better end-result as the kernel can integrate changes that others wrote if they provide a better experience in some way.

[nix23]

Really? And whats with all the proprietary blobs? The Modules (like nvidia), for the end-user it changes absolutely nothing, having bad firmware your wifi will not work, the license is absolutely not important for the end-user. Nearly no one cares that most Androids have stoneage Linux kernels, whats important for them is that the Android-Runtime (aka Play-store) can download and execute "Apps".

>potentially improved kernel

Or potentially worsened kernel, which now sits in you closed down IoT device, again the license is NOT important for the normal end-user.

[jraph]

It is wrong that the license is absolutely not important for the end-user. Most users might not directly care about the license of the software they use, especially between free software licenses, but they might care about the consequences even if they are not aware of the causal relation.

You might not know anything about how the engine works in your car but it is still important that it is made correctly. The whole Free Software movement targets end users and works on the assumption that these questions are important for them.

Licenses might look like non significant technical details to most end users, but they are not, and many people not in the field are able to understand the subtleties. We should consider people's ignorance inevitable. This is not a fact we can't do anything about. Software is omnipresent in our societies and as massive effects on them. They have the right to know, should care, and actually often do if you don't push them. I know, I tried.

> all the proprietary blobs

Which ones? Nvidia seems to the exception here, and only concerns Nvidia's hardware anyway. If you think of Android drivers, they are in user space libraries (Had the Linux kernel been in a non-copyleft license, they would probably live in kernel space and working out the shitty situation of Android with the kernel would be far more difficult.

Thanks to the Linux kernel being under GPL, Android vendors and manufacturers are forced to release their kernel sources, which allows projects like Lineage OS and other Android derivatives to exist.

> or potentially worsened kernel

I can't imagine why kernel developers would accept a patch that knowingly worsens the kernel upstream.

The GPL forces shitty hardware makers to release their shitty code but nobody is forced to merge it upstream.

bad closed firmware are unfortunate but I don't know what it has to do with Linux being under the GPL.

[abrambleninja]

> Really? And whats with all the proprietary blobs? The Modules (like nvidia), for the end-user it changes absolutely nothing, having bad firmware your wifi will not work, the license is absolutely not important for the end-user.

I think the sibling comment covered most of this well, but I just wanted to add that relying on closed-source drivers is far from necessary with many setups of modern day Linux. All of the drivers on my computer, save for the processor microcode, are open source and for the most part, bug free. In fact, they are probably mostly bug free because they have so many eyes on them.

> Nearly no one cares that most Androids have stoneage Linux kernels, whats important for them is that the Android-Runtime (aka Play-store) can download and execute "Apps".

While many users might not know this is the reason, I think the copyleft license of Linux has let it become where it is currently, as it forces vendors who might otherwise release proprietary blobs addressing issues must instead release the changes with a license such that it can be improved upstream. This pushes companies who spend the energy to fix the bugs in an otherwise good kernel to give those changes back to the community, similar to how the companies took from the community in order to use the kernel.

> > potentially improved kernel

> Or potentially worsened kernel, which now sits in you closed down IoT device, again the license is NOT important for the normal end-user.

Well I think this is a great argument in favor of GPLv3 over GPLv2, which bans this (see [1]). This is another reason why end users could care about the license used in the code. GPLv3 code guarantees the end user the freedom to modify the code and run it on their device (or apply other people's modifications). Though I will concede that this is less of an end-user-centric idea because it requires a decent level of technical competency.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization