cross-posted from: https://programming.dev/post/35495679
Earlier post version: image/text.
From another article referenced there:
The maintainers of the Ubuntu Linux distribution are now rewriting GNU Coreutils in Rust. Instead of using the GPLv3 license, which is designed to make sure that the freedoms and rights of the user of the program are preserved and always respected over everything else, the new version is going to be released using the very permissible or “permissive” (non-reciprocal) MIT license, which allows creating proprietary closed-source forks of the program.
There will surely be small incompatibilities - either intentional or accidental - between the Rust rewrite of coreutils and the GNU/C version. If the Rust version becomes popular - and it probably will, if Ubuntu starts using it - the Rust people will start pushing their own versions of higher level programs that are only compatible with the Rust version of coreutils. They will most probably also spam commits to already existing programs making them incompatible with the GNU/C version of coreutils. That way either everyone will be forced into using the MIT-licensed Rust version of coreutils, or the Linux userland becomes even more broken than it already is because now we have again two incompatible sets of runtime functions that conflict with one another. Either way, both outcomes benefit the corporations that produce proprietary software.
(Source – which does contain some more-than-problematic language outside of these passages, compare the valid objections raised by others here and in the cross-posts.)
Compare also how leaders of Canonical/Ubuntu have ties to Microsoft, and how the Canonical employee who leads the push to rewrite coreutils as non-GPL-licensed Rust software has spent years working for the British Army, where he “Architected and built multiple high-end bespoke Electronic Surveillance capabilities”, by his own proud admission.
I’ve addressed it:
I stand corrected regarding it being a blatant lie. However, the paragraph is still at least manipulative since nothing indicated that it was the primary communication platform. The forums were listed before it. At most you could argue Discord was primary chat platform, but even that is irrelevant considering that anyone who didn’t like Discord had an alternatives.
Sounds like the author is authoritarian and wants to dictate what people can and cannot use on the Internet.
Last I checked Firefox and Chromium were free software and the forums work in both. Furthermore, if anything you should have issue with Discourse rather than Rust since that’s the software running the forums. Or better still, submit patches to fix compatibility issues.
You did not address it. Possible incompatibilities in code level is completely different thing then releasing them with a not copyleft license. MIT license allows that a closed sourced version can be created that could, in theory, be used to replace the MIT licensed versions in what ever distro uses them. Copyleft licenses, like the GNU GPL, don’t allow this. Recreating a well established and used core utilities, in whatever language, as a replacement to use, at first, in your distro and licensing them with a permissive license undermines the whole purpose of FOSS.
Issue is that author stated that ‘Rust people’ are authoritarian and that they chose to reimplement coreutils to impose authoritarian control over FOSS. This is not grounded in reality. Unless you also want to claim that ‘BSD people’ are authoritarian, the author presents no valid point of discussion.
If you want to discuss consequences of uutils being under permissive license, feel free to write a coherent fact-based post about that. Article you’ve cited makes you no favours. If anything, based on the article and your post all I noticed is ‘how disgusting people many GPL proponents are.’
You are completely missing the point here. You replied to OPs comment about licensing with a comment about incompatibilities in code. My comment was about licensing.
If wanting to keep FOSS as FOSS is disgusting to you why are you in this community in the first place?
Edit: Not once did I mention whether or not I agree with the posted article or the OP.
But the post is about an article by Sami Tikkanen/Roy Schestowitz (not really sure who the author is) and my answer is in context of that post. Like I’ve said, if you want to discuss licensing policies and how uutils affects future of FOSS, don’t use manipulative trash articles as starting point. Write a coherent post where you present factual information and than we can talk.
It isn’t. But author of the article and OP are lying and using manipulative language to discredit people they disagree with. That’s what I find disgusting. I criticise the article because I don’t want such people representing copyleft licenses.