Post #1543792

2026-04-22 22:54 UTC

I don’t think I’ll ever understand the constant complaints about the license. If it were the kernel or some software that was particularly unique, then I’d understand. However, there are many existing implementations of the coreutils programs that are already under permissive licenses. If someone didn’t want to use the GPL, they could just use one of those. This is partly why it is incredibly fiddly to write cross-platform shell scripts.

Replies (2)

@doodoo_wizard@lemmy.ml 2026-04-23 00:28

The mit license allows someone (some company) to modify the open source codebase and sell the result without making their modifications public. It allows the software equivalent of the enclosure of the commons. If there was a particularly large or significant and widespread codebase —like for example the coreutils— that was used everywhere and mit licensed, a company could make their own slightly different coreutils without publicizing the differences and use their position in the market to enclose the commons of knowledge about the use of that software. Such a situation would lead to a fractured feature ecosystem and confusion around best practices. In that environment, the biggest and most popular software distributor would benefit because their product would be most common and therefore the best target to design around. I know there’s a lot of “coulds” and “woulds” in that sentence, but that’s exactly what happened in the 80s and 90s with the ostensibly open source Unix codebase and the reason why the gpl was invented.

Open ##1554393
@umbrella@lemmy.ml 2026-04-22 23:46

mit lets companies take them without contributing back critical stuff like security fixes. their money and resources is very important to keep foss alive and it relies a lot on the gpl because it just means they are forced to take responsibility for the projects they use to make their billions.

Open ##1554903