• jkrtn@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    FYI my understanding is that Incus is forked from LXD, because nobody trusts Canonical any longer. I don’t think LXD itself is them doing the thing that makes them untrustworthy.

    You might be referring to something they have done since then, apologies if I misunderstood. Wouldn’t be surprised if they tried to make it a Snap or force Snaps into it.

    https://linuxiac.com/incus-project-lxd-fork/

    • TechNom (nobody)@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      8 months ago

      LXD was under the Linux containers project earlier. After the Canonical takeover of LXD, the following changes were made:

      1. The repo privileges of the original LXD developers were revoked. Those developers are driving the development of Incus now.
      2. LXD’s license was changed to AGPL+CLA

      The first point means that Incus is the true successor of the original LXD. The current LXD is a jealously guarded pet project of Canonical in the same manner as Snap and Mir.

      As for the second point, I’m usually a proponent of AGPL. But CLA corrupts it so much that it’s more harmful than with a permissive license. The real intention of this license change is to prevent Incus from incorporating changes from LXD (since the copyleft license of LXD code is incompatible with the permissive license of Incus). Meanwhile LXD continues to incorporate changes from Incus, although the Incus developers haven’t signed any CLA. This move by Canonical is in very bad faith, IMO.

      So yes - I consider LXD to be untrustworthy. But that doesn’t cover the old LXD code, its developers or its community. Those transformed fully into the Incus project the same way OpenOffice was forked into LibreOffice. And I don’t trust the LXD name anymore in the same way nobody trusted the OpenOffice name after the fork (before it was donated to the Apache foundation).