3 ms·

> Also, Ubuntu using a non-GPL licensed userland means they can pull all kinds of tricks to allow more TiVoization in the Linux ecosystem. Can we stop this con

> Also, Ubuntu using a non-GPL licensed userland means they can pull all kinds of tricks to allow more TiVoization in the Linux ecosystem. Can we stop this conspiracy nonsense? They have explicitly stated that licensing was not a motivation, and even if you think they're lying it wouldn't make any sense anyway! No Tivoization is foiled by Coreutils being GPL. That's ridiculous for so many reasons, not least you can just use the BSD versions, as Apple does (and they still release the source code!).

bayindirh 9mo ago
> Can we stop this conspiracy nonsense? If they can earn my trust, why not? I'm not a pointlessly stubborn person. I have changed my views in the past, and can certainly change in the future. This my view resulting from my experiences, and jury is still out from my perspective. If you want to trust Canonical and Co., you can. Don't let me stop you. > They have explicitly stated that licensing was not a motivation, and even if you think they're lying it wouldn't make any sense anyway! Who prevents forking Ubuntu and taking that extra mile, esp. now we have a company which wants to enable exactly that lockdown? > No Tivoization is foiled by Coreutils being GPL. Belts have holes. They can be used to hold or to choke. Adding more holes to a belt allows more different uses. > That's ridiculous for so many reasons, Can you give me more reasons to believe me that I'm a tinfoil wearing crazy weirdo? > not least you can just use the BSD versions, as Apple does (and they still release the source code!). Same Apple removing any GPLv3 (and possibly GPLv2) tool from their roster in every iteration from their OS. Same Apple which provides no way to verify that what's published is what's running on their hardware. Same Apple which provides SIP to seal their system partitions which can't be modified without breaking tons of guarantees and seals. Same Apple which controls from their processor to software, without any gaps. Having the source have no meaning there. You can't use that source. You can't modify the machine you use, you can't install any other OS or just test something.
duskdozer 9mo ago
Well, why not license it as GPL then? If they don't care of course.
- IshKebab 9mo ago
  Good question. Probably just because most Rust projects don't use GPL and they copied that. I searched but couldn't find an answer. I wouldn't be entirely surprised if they change it to GPL just to shut people up.
  - bayindirh 9mo ago
    > I wouldn't be entirely surprised if they change it to GPL just to shut people up. They don't and wont. > I searched but couldn't find an answer. Here's the answer: https://github.com/uutils/coreutils/issues/2757 https://github.com/uutils/coreutils/issues/2757. This is a link I found long time ago and saved to reference when need arises. From the (current) lead author: The license has been decided way before my time. I am 0 interest in starting a license debate (I care if the license is DFSG - Debian Free Software Guidelines) and spend time on it. I would rather use my limited time to make rust/coreutils ready for production. More debate: https://github.com/uutils/coreutils/issues/834 https://github.com/uutils/coreutils/issues/834 From what I understood, they don't "believe" in GPL and don't like the idea of "having to keep it open". They believe in Developer Freedom(TM), not User Freedom(TM), so they don't care whether their code is closed by others or not. To summarize #834: We don't like GPL. We'll do MIT, thanks.
  - LtWorf 9mo ago
    Lol, that won't happen. The whole point for doing this is getting rid of yet another copyleft component. Especially GPLv3 stuff, companies hate it.
- pjmlp 9mo ago
  Because GPL doesn't play well with static linking, the new favourite of programming languages rediscovering the pre-1990's ways of most operating systems linkers (aka binders).

bayindirh 9mo ago

> Can we stop this conspiracy nonsense? If they can earn my trust, why not? I'm not a pointlessly stubborn person. I have changed my views in the past, and can certainly change in the future. This my view resulting from my experiences, and jury is still out from my perspective. If you want to trust Canonical and Co., you can. Don't let me stop you. > They have explicitly stated that licensing was not a motivation, and even if you think they're lying it wouldn't make any sense anyway! Who prevents forking Ubuntu and taking that extra mile, esp. now we have a company which wants to enable exactly that lockdown? > No Tivoization is foiled by Coreutils being GPL. Belts have holes. They can be used to hold or to choke. Adding more holes to a belt allows more different uses. > That's ridiculous for so many reasons, Can you give me more reasons to believe me that I'm a tinfoil wearing crazy weirdo? > not least you can just use the BSD versions, as Apple does (and they still release the source code!). Same Apple removing any GPLv3 (and possibly GPLv2) tool from their roster in every iteration from their OS. Same Apple which provides no way to verify that what's published is what's running on their hardware. Same Apple which provides SIP to seal their system partitions which can't be modified without breaking tons of guarantees and seals. Same Apple which controls from their processor to software, without any gaps. Having the source have no meaning there. You can't use that source. You can't modify the machine you use, you can't install any other OS or just test something.

duskdozer 9mo ago

Well, why not license it as GPL then? If they don't care of course.

IshKebab 9mo ago
Good question. Probably just because most Rust projects don't use GPL and they copied that. I searched but couldn't find an answer. I wouldn't be entirely surprised if they change it to GPL just to shut people up.
- bayindirh 9mo ago
  > I wouldn't be entirely surprised if they change it to GPL just to shut people up. They don't and wont. > I searched but couldn't find an answer. Here's the answer: https://github.com/uutils/coreutils/issues/2757 https://github.com/uutils/coreutils/issues/2757. This is a link I found long time ago and saved to reference when need arises. From the (current) lead author: The license has been decided way before my time. I am 0 interest in starting a license debate (I care if the license is DFSG - Debian Free Software Guidelines) and spend time on it. I would rather use my limited time to make rust/coreutils ready for production. More debate: https://github.com/uutils/coreutils/issues/834 https://github.com/uutils/coreutils/issues/834 From what I understood, they don't "believe" in GPL and don't like the idea of "having to keep it open". They believe in Developer Freedom(TM), not User Freedom(TM), so they don't care whether their code is closed by others or not. To summarize #834: We don't like GPL. We'll do MIT, thanks.
- LtWorf 9mo ago
  Lol, that won't happen. The whole point for doing this is getting rid of yet another copyleft component. Especially GPLv3 stuff, companies hate it.
pjmlp 9mo ago
Because GPL doesn't play well with static linking, the new favourite of programming languages rediscovering the pre-1990's ways of most operating systems linkers (aka binders).