Post #1094471
2026-04-10 20:13 UTC
Replies (2)
-
@doodoo_wizard@lemmy.ml 2026-04-12 14:30
Yeah but people who want to sell support and their own unique coreutils are interested in that. Also not interested in a rust rewrite of coreutils but the same ppl whose material interests are served by mit licensing get to replace senior devs with fresh off the bus/out of college juniors and ai when they target rust so that’s happening too.
-
@nobody_1677@lemmy.world 2026-04-10 20:39
I can understand MIT being an issue in some cases. For example, VSCode is a proprietary fork of the MIT open-source Code. If Microsoft wanted, they could stop publishing the MIT open source version. Of course that code would still exist as MIT, but development would slow down without Microsoft. But I don't see uutils being MIT as an issue. It's primary goal is to be compatible with GNU coreutils. You can't really rug pull a project with a goal like that. And permissively licensed utils have been around thanks to BSD and it's never been an issue. You don't see companies like Apple using proprietary forked versions as benefit. The "value" they add is higher up the tech stack with their own truly proprietary stuff or open stuff that encourages lock-in to its ecosystem, like Swift.