When did the Linux kernel become libre software?

Question

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.

The title of this question was better before the edit: "libre" is not an English word, but "liberated" is. — Aaron F, Jun 03 '19 at 14:38
@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 03 '19 at 14:55
@JörgWMittag I know, and it's not ever been correct :-) It's free because you don't have to pay for it. It's not freely floating about, nor has it been liberated to roam the wilderness. It's a pretentious and confusing term. "Free software" was fine :-D — Aaron F, Jun 03 '19 at 15:17
@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 03 '19 at 16:04
@IMSoP I know, and I still don't agree :-D OK, I'll stop being facetious now. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html <-- this details the issues with the naming (and the drawbacks of the English word 'free') :-) — Aaron F, Jun 03 '19 at 16:13
From the help center: "Questions are most welcomed on: ... computing history and persons with a historic relation to computing. [tag:history]", but also: "Questions about modern, currently supported computers are off-topic. This includes questions about earlier versions of a current machine or OS.". But if the license of the Linux kernel isn't considered "computing history", but rather "about earlier versions of a current OS", then shouldn't the question about earliest Linux distributions also be off-topic in the same way? — ilkkachu, Jun 04 '19 at 19:32
@ilkkachu Nah. I think a question about Windows 1.0 would be totally on-topic even though it's an "earlier version of a current OS." Even AmigaOS (undoubtedly a retro OS) is a "current OS" since it's still being developed by Cloanto. I think the "earlier version" restriction is so people don't say their question about Windows 7 is historical. Possibly a better rule would be one that restricts questions about machines and OSes that are still in common use for their original intended purpose. — Willis Blackburn, Aug 31 '21 at 02:56
The term "Open Source" was invented to be a shorthand for "free as in free speech, not free as in free beer." "Libre" seems like a clumsy substitute for an existing, adequate term. — Wayne Conrad, Sep 28 '22 at 16:48

Justme · Accepted Answer · 2019-06-03T18:17:48.967

34

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

edited Jun 03 '19 at 18:17

answered Jun 02 '19 at 20:15

Justme

31,506
1
73
145

You can consult release 0.99 at this mirror – aloisdg Jun 03 '19 at 13:22
1

Your first link says "0.92", but your second says "0.12" – IMSoP Jun 03 '19 at 16:13
4

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 03 '19 at 16:47
@IMSoP That is not my answer, someone edited it and I refused it. It still got edited. – Justme Jun 03 '19 at 17:52
2

@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 03 '19 at 18:01
7

@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 03 '19 at 18:03
@IMSoP my apologies, the 0.12 was correct all along of course, for some reason I had typed it incorrectly. – Justme Jun 03 '19 at 18:19
1

@IMSoP: That's a very curious definition of "liberated", but be that as it may, it still doesn't make software with this restriction "proprietary". – dirkt Jun 03 '19 at 19:06
9

@dirkt You or I might disagree, but that's how Richard Stallman and the FSF see the world: software is either "free" or it is "non-free". Calling a license that makes the source available but restricts its use "proprietary" may seem an exaggeration, but Stallman isn't particularly known for his subtlety or acceptance of grey areas. – IMSoP Jun 03 '19 at 20:17
4

Stallman is not a neutral arbiter of anything, and in particular he has no authority over the English language. – dave Aug 26 '21 at 19:41
6

@another-dave No, but he has authority over his own speech. Right now, neither the question nor the answer uses "proprietary" or "liberated" other than in a quote from Stallman; the necessary context for understanding that quote is how he chooses to use those words, not who else agrees or disagrees with him. – IMSoP Aug 27 '21 at 10:55
1

@IMSop - true, but asking when Linux met some Stallman-defined criteria implicitly ascribes authority to such criteria. – dave Aug 27 '21 at 23:24
5

@another-dave Whatever terminology you use, the change from restricting to allowing commercial distribution is a hugely significant moment in the history of the project. The question could be reworded to not mention Stallman at all, and still be interesting (but for some reason your comment was under the answer, which already doesn't mention him). – IMSoP Aug 28 '21 at 08:34

score 7 · Answer 2 · answered Sep 28 '22 at 13:01

To provide a source more substantial than Wikipedia…

The licence change was announced in the release notes for Linux 0.12:

COPYRIGHT

The Linux copyright will change: I've had a couple of requests to make it compatible with the GNU copyleft, removing the "you may not distribute it for money" condition. I agree. I propose that the copyright be changed so that it confirms to GNU - pending approval of the persons who have helped write code. I assume this is going to be no problem for anybody: If you have grievances ("I wrote that code assuming the copyright would stay the same") mail me. Otherwise The GNU copyleft takes effect as of the first of February. If you do not know the gist of the GNU copyright - read it.

The release tarball dates it as January 16th, 1992.

The next release was numbered 0.95; the release notes for that version are dated March 7th, 1992 and describe the licence change as complete.

When did the Linux kernel become libre software?

2 Answers2

Linked