[fsflover]

> and GrapheneOS does a better job of that

While Google is allowing that.

> Just like with x86 the mainline kernel needs to support the hardware e you want to use though

Librem 5 runs on all free drivers. This is why it will never be tied to an old kernel. This doesn't work with GrapheneOS.

[charcircuit]

>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]

> 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.

See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46177148

> 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]

>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]

> 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.

[charcircuit]

Linus doesn't release a linked version of the kernel so that FAQ does not apply

>I don't consider dependence on Google as "working for the users".

Why not? They work more for users than other organizations that you would try and replace them with.

>Obeying Google is not "security"

I don't know what you are referring to.

[fsflover]

> Linus doesn't release a linked version of the kernel

Linked to what? Any new change in it must become open, which is the whole point of "viral", copyleft GPL license, in contrast to permissive ones.

> They work more for users than other organizations that you would try and replace them with.

They put their users in dangerous dependence on Google. This is not what I would consider more useful than alternatives. It may be more useful in the short term, since it still works, but in the long term it's dangerous. In this sense it's not much different from good proprietary software like MacOS.

> I don't know what you are referring to.

GrapheneOS didn't completely fork Android. They still follow Google's development strategy, which only benefits Google and not users.