4 ms·
"uutils is licensed under the MIT License - see the LICENSE file for details" - funny to see GNU software reimplemented in another open source license.
by reirob 12y ago
"uutils is licensed under the MIT License - see the LICENSE file for details" - funny to see GNU software reimplemented in another open source license.
- endgame 12y agoFree software reimplementation projects go to great pains to avoid code written by people who have looked at proprietary source. I hope this rewrite extends the same courtesy.
- jessaustin 12y agoI'm a big GNU fan, and actually prefer to use the AGPL, but I don't understand this opinion. It seems to contradict the whole concept of free software. EDIT: Thanks for the informative responses! This sort of effort might ought to receive the occasional audit, which probably could be done in semi-automated fashion.
- dllthomas 12y agoLooking at source for something implementing the same thing opens you to accusations of being a derivative work. If the licenses are compatible, then this is no downside. If the licenses are incompatible, this makes it harder to defend against a lawsuit (even if you probably, in principle, remain in the right).
- cwyers 12y agoThe MIT license is compatible with the GPL; you can use MIT-licensed code in GPL projects.
- icebraining 12y agoYes, but the reverse is not true; you can't use GPL-licensed code on your project and still distribute it all as MIT-licensed.
- gillianseed 12y agoIt's true that the GPL-licenced code will remain GPL licenced, the MIT-licenced code will remain available under MIT though.
- dllthomas 12y agoYes. Compatibility is not a commutative relationship.
- icebraining 12y agoIf someone were to write MIT licensed code that was heavily "inspired"[1] by reading GPL licensed code, people could then take that MIT licensed code and make proprietary clones and forks, effectively bypassing the GPL restrictions. It'd be essentially "code laundering". [1] in a copyright infringing way, as defined by the courts in your preferred jurisdiction
- pjc50 12y agoThe GNU coreutils are of course themselves a rewrite of the original Bell Labs / System V tools, plus a few decades of minor added features.
- reirob 12y agoI do not understand the down votes. Can somebody explain? I did not mean to hurt any feeling. I was just surprised to see the license of a software where "GNU" is in the title. I naturally assumed that it will be in GNU license. So it was a surprise to discover MIT. Now I understand. I should have written "surprising" instead of "funny". Sometimes writing about a subject gives you the answer. Sorry for those that I hurt.
- adestefan 12y agoBecause there is a large anti-GPL contingent on HN.
- icefox 12y agoIs it anti-gpl or anti-gpl3? It seems from a public relations perspective gpl3 really lost a lot of mindshare in the open source world, including me.
- steveklabnik 12y agoIt's anti-GPL. Remember, a large target audience of HN are entrepreneurs, who want to use open source components in their closed-source applications that they're selling. (A)GPL prevents them from doing this, (not selling, but keeping it closed source, which many see as being important to selling) so they get pissed.
- stephenr 12y agoA large part of HN is developers who like to release good code and let anyone use it as they see fit. GPL has neither of those goals and actively works against the latter.
- steveklabnik 12y ago> actively works against the latter. For your definition of 'anyone.' BSD software often does not let the end user use it as they see fit, as they no longer have access to the source code.
- u124556 12y agoSo if I replace coreutils with this on my Linux box, I won't have to call it GNU+Linux anymore?
- Sanddancer 12y agoThat's kinda stallman's position, however, he still insists on his talks using GNU/Linux, even if you want to ask questions about the general Linux ecosystem, such as embedded development, or android, which have few to no GNU components.