Ubuntu explores replacing gnu utils with rust based uutils
-
What does the license change actually mean? What are the differences?
The code can be taken and used in close source projects
-
as long as the linux kernel is still gpl.
I seem to recall some drama about rust in the kernel... what could that mean...
That has nothing to do with anything. rust code has nothing to do with the license.
-
as long as the linux kernel is still gpl.
I seem to recall some drama about rust in the kernel... what could that mean...
Nothing. The language used has absolutely nothing to do with the license.
-
So i hear that removing all the gnu stuff opens linux to be redistributed with a bew liesinse like mit. Which means its a little more closed iff a little more monitized.
Not knowledge enough on my own to know for sure. If someone with more knowledge could explain.
The Linux kernel still is and will always be GPL. It really doesnt matter if the coreutils aren't.
-
I would love this news if it didn't move away from the GPL.
Mass move to MIT is just empowering enshittification by greedy companies.
Genuinely what negative ramifications could come of uutils being MIT licensed? The kernel license isn't going to change and I really don't see how companies can abuse uutils for a profit.
-
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.
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.
Rsync is great software, but the C language fates it to keep having memory issues in spite of its skilled developers.
Preventing a bug from being possible > fixing a bug.
-
but they do exist and most of those would be solved with a memory and type safe language.
Maybe.
Still, there are other sources of bugs beyond memory management.
And i'd rather have GPL-ed potentially unsafe C code to... closed-source Rust code.
The Rust code isn't closed source, but I'd strongly prefer a coreutils replacement to use GPL over MIT as well.
-
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?
The correct title should be "Ubuntu explores replacing gnu utils with MIT licenced uutils".
-
The code can be taken and used in close source projects
And how does this hurt all of us who use it for open source projects?
-
And how does this hurt all of us who use it for open source projects?
Competitive improvements the company makes make be kept secret, re packaged, and sold without making contributions to the src code.
Basically embrace, extend, extinguish
-
I wonder whether Linux Mint will follow suit?
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.
-
And how does this hurt all of us who use it for open source projects?
means it can also be captured by a corpo takeover and taken private
-
Unlike the other alternative coreutils, uutils focuses on GNU compatibility. If you depend on GNUisms, this allows you to unGNU & unGPLv3+ your system.
I don't understand, you'd still have to completely replace the linux kernel for a situation where this matters to occur, no?
and the linux kernel is where 99% of the work is, correct?
-
means it can also be captured by a corpo takeover and taken private
It can be forked by anyone, but what is already out there will always be there.
-
It can be forked by anyone, but what is already out there will always be there.
Until you're left with choosing between an abandoned open source version and an up to date closed source blob.
-
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 for one welcome our rust overlords
-
I don't understand, you'd still have to completely replace the linux kernel for a situation where this matters to occur, no?
and the linux kernel is where 99% of the work is, correct?
The Linux kernel is licensed under GPLv2, not v3. The third version of the license forbids tivoization (vendoring unmodifiable copyleft software). Also, the GNU coreutils aren't limited to Linux.
-
This is one of the old-time original arguments in the OSS community.
The crux of the matter is that the GNU licenses require that modifications be released back to the community. Other "more permissible" licenses like MIT do not.
So if you want to make a commercial version of X, and X is under a GPL, then any changes you make need to be released under the GPL. The idea being "I shared this code with the community with the intent that you can use it for free and modify it as you like, but you need to share back what you do." Also called "Share and share alike".
This defends against "embrace, extend, extinguish" tactics that companies like Microsoft has loved to do. They can't take your code, modify it for their own purposes and re-sell it possibly making a more popular version that is now proprietary.
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.
-
Competitive improvements the company makes make be kept secret, re packaged, and sold without making contributions to the src code.
Basically embrace, extend, extinguish
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.
-
The correct title should be "Ubuntu explores replacing gnu utils with MIT licenced uutils".
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?
