Ubuntu Will Replace GNU Core Utilities With Rust
-
Open source has been captured and corporatized.
But Ubuntu has always been extremely corporate.
That doesn't mean we should make it easier for them, if anything that means we need a V4 of the GPL that addresses and combats that
-
sadly, i think that's exactly the reason why so many gnu coreutils/libc/compiler keep croping up: people want to get rid of the gpl as much as possible. if they could replace the linux kernel with a non gpl variant they would
not that the people creating the projects necessarily have this intention, but the projects are certainly being picked up and sponsored mainly for that reason
Imo thats also why its devolped as well, people genuenly like permissive licenses because apparently coporate leeches arent an issue to them.
-
Okay, so it's likely to happen. I never disputed that. But just because the VP says he intends for it to happen still is not the same as a statement by the company that it will happen. He could get vetoed. He could lose his job. There could be a material shortage. Trademark disputes. A kraken could fly through his window and devour his testicles forcing him to be in the hospital on the exact day the paperwork has to be filed.
The fact remains this article is titled in a very clickbaity way because it jumps to the foregone conclusion that "want to do" = "will 100% happen".
Please let it be the kraken option.
-
Please let it be the kraken option.
I feel ya there, friend. Haha.
-
Okay, so it's likely to happen. I never disputed that. But just because the VP says he intends for it to happen still is not the same as a statement by the company that it will happen. He could get vetoed. He could lose his job. There could be a material shortage. Trademark disputes. A kraken could fly through his window and devour his testicles forcing him to be in the hospital on the exact day the paperwork has to be filed.
The fact remains this article is titled in a very clickbaity way because it jumps to the foregone conclusion that "want to do" = "will 100% happen".
The fact remains this article is titled in a very clickbaity way
The link is to a youtube video, not an article, so apparently you resisted taking the bait... but aren't letting your lack of a click prevent you from commenting
-
Huh, he mains NixOS. Always a bit funny to see someone daily driving a distro different than what they professionally work on.
The "VP Engineering for Ubuntu" being a NixOS user is the funniest thing since the CEO of Ford saying he's been driving a Xiaomi EV "for six months now and I don’t want to give it up".
-
Sounds good to me.
I actually prefer the MIT license too. It's more open.
If you were a survivor of Unix Wars you'd never touch MIT again
-
oh no!! wait but that means that xubuntu will still be around?? because as far as i know, xfce has some elements that use agpl and that would interfere with some rust code and would hurt xubuntu. would that make xubuntu stop existing?
IANAL, but as far as I know there's no problem with distributing MIT software as a GPL component, since MIT allows imposing extra restrictions (like the share-the-source limitations of the GPL) to the code, so you can in theory turn every MIT software into GPL, what you can't do is turn GPL software into MIT.
-
Cursed image
-
That doesn't mean we should make it easier for them, if anything that means we need a V4 of the GPL that addresses and combats that
-
No I mean less permissive, a license that can ensure major corporations cant just take someone's work and overshadow them
-
More open strictly in that it allows free software to be rolled up into proprietary software.
So what? Some people just want to make stuff that helps other people.
A more open license is a way to accomplish that.
IMO it's weird to complain that someone makes their thing even more open source.
-
So what? Some people just want to make stuff that helps other people.
A more open license is a way to accomplish that.
IMO it's weird to complain that someone makes their thing even more open source.
I'm not complaining; I'm clarifying for less informed readers. It's a subtle and often misleading distinction.
Calling a license that leads to more proprietary software "even more open source" is absolutely debatable. The only extra restriction is disallowing free software becoming proprietary, which promotes more openness overall.
You're not wrong by any means, but people should understand the actual tradeoff when considering licenses.
-
No I mean less permissive, a license that can ensure major corporations cant just take someone's work and overshadow them
-
The fact remains this article is titled in a very clickbaity way
The link is to a youtube video, not an article, so apparently you resisted taking the bait... but aren't letting your lack of a click prevent you from commenting
.........Touché.
-
Ew, AI generated image.
-
While shifting to Rust might be a good idea for improving safety and performance, adopting the MIT license represents a fundamental change that will enable large tech companies to develop and distribute proprietary software based on the new MIT-licensed Core Utilities. This shift moves away from the original vision of the project which was to ensure that the software remains free and open as enshrined in the GPL's copyleft principles. The permissive nature of the MIT license also will increase fragmentation, as it allows proprietary forks that diverge from the main project. This could weaken the community-driven development model and potentially lead to incompatible versions of the software.
That explains all the fragmentation with Xorg, Mesa, libxml, and Haiku OS.
-
This post did not contain any content.
How hard is it to just use a decent license like AGPL???
-
System shared this topic on
