Ubuntu explores replacing gnu utils with rust based uutils
-
Somewhat ironic example.
X (Xorg) has been MT licensed for 40 years. So is Wayland. So is Mesa.
I think Xorg is a good example of the real world risks for something like core utils. If you did not know or care until now that X and Wayland were MIT licensed, you probably do not need to care too much about utils licensing either.
Here's a better example: the use of GPL software (primarily Linux and busybox) by Linksys when they made their wrt54g router was used to compel them into releasing the source code of the firmware for that router. Subsequent GPL enforcement by the SFC made Cisco release full firmware sources for a whole series of Linksys routers. Thanks to those sources openwrt, ddwrt and several other open source router firmwares developed.
I can now run three openwrt routers in my home purely thanks to the GPL. If those projects had been MIT licensed, Linksys and Cisco could have just politely told everyone to go suck a lemon because they would have had no obligation to release anything.
-
Waiting for Canonical to up sell proprietary features for a subscription. Ubuntu's regular release cycles were brilliant in 2004 when there weren't a lot of alternatives but why does it still exist?
Sorry, "tee" is not part of the basic Ubuntu package. Do you want to unlock premium coreutils for the cheap price of 19.99$ p.m.?
Alternatively, upgrade your Ubuntu pro to pro-double-plus-good for 10$ p.m. -
Ideas can only be patented, not copyrighted. If a company designs something novel enough to qualify for a patent, and so good that people willingly pay for the feature, that's impressive, and arguably still a good thing. If instead they design a better user experience, or an improvement in performance, the ideas can be used in open source, even when the code cannot be.
Patents kill innovation. No one should be granted rights to a concept purely because they got to it first. It’s still really.
-
At first I was sceptical, but after a few thought, I came to the solution that, if uutils can do the same stuff, is/stays actively maintained and more secure/safe (like memory bugs), this is a good change.
What are your thoughts abouth this?
I prefer a glibc replacement.
-
Sorry, "tee" is not part of the basic Ubuntu package. Do you want to unlock premium coreutils for the cheap price of 19.99$ p.m.?
Alternatively, upgrade your Ubuntu pro to pro-double-plus-good for 10$ p.m.What does this have to do with MIT licensing?
-
Mint is basically Ubuntu with all of Canonical's BS removed. This definitely counts as Cononical BS, so I'd be surprised if it made its way into Mint.
Canonical making open source software that is more secure than the code it replaces and offering it for free is canonical bs? If so give me more.
-
Time for Mecha-Stallman to declare war.
It's funny since don't these core utils come from bsd meaning the new license is more like the original license than gpl is like either. So didn't gnu effectively steal the code and change the license for political reasons?
-
I fear moving away from GPL that moving to Rust seems to bring, but Rust does fix real memory issues.
So you prefer closed-source code to potentially unsafe open-source code?
Take the recent rsync vulnerabilities for example.
Already fixed, in software that's existed for years and is used by millions. But Oh no, memory issues, let's rewrite that in <language of the month>! will surely result in a better outcome.
Rust isn't language of the month unless you've been asleep for a decade.
What about the rust version is closed source?
This whole post is very disingenuous.
-
The Rust code isn’t closed source yet
FTFYWhat the fuck is wrong with your brain?
-
At first I was sceptical, but after a few thought, I came to the solution that, if uutils can do the same stuff, is/stays actively maintained and more secure/safe (like memory bugs), this is a good change.
What are your thoughts abouth this?
I'm mixed on it. If it is more secure/safe then that's a good thing, but if it's done because it's MIT-licensed instead of GPL-licensed, then that could possibly be concerning.
-
My scepticism is that this should've been done within the coreutils project, or at least very closely affiliated. This isn't an arra of the linux technical stack that we should tolerate being made distro-specific, especially when the licensing is controlled by a single organisation that famously picks and chooses its interpretation of "FOSS" to suit its profit margins.
uutils is not distro-specific.
-
uutils/Linux?
Systemd/Linux
-
At first I was sceptical, but after a few thought, I came to the solution that, if uutils can do the same stuff, is/stays actively maintained and more secure/safe (like memory bugs), this is a good change.
What are your thoughts abouth this?
On the one hand, Toybox exists. So, the non-copyleft license bs isn't new. On the other hand, toybox afaik isnt aiming to treat "deviations with GNu as bugs". Almost feels hostile-takeover-ish though I know that almost certinly isn't the idea behindbit.
If this ends in proprietization bs I'm going to throw hands.
-
System shared this topic