68
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] LeFantome@programming.dev 0 points 2 days ago

What could be the possible incentive to:

  1. move core utils to a closed license if you are a company

  2. for a Linux distro to choose that version over the already existing Open Source version

Remember companies cannot take Open Source code bases closed. They can fork an Open Source project and close their fork. But all that means is that their “future” changes are not Open Source

The original Open Source code still exists and we can all keep using it.

For a real world example of companies not closing their userland, Apple still releases the source to their userland even though the BSD license does not require it.

For a real world example of the community continuing on with the Open Source code and ignoring the closed fork, look at Valkey and Reddis.

GNU is completely dominated by Red Hat. The alternatives, like uutils, are far LESS corporate.

Fear and feelings over facts.

[-] Ephera@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 days ago

Listing examples where it works without enforcement is not an argument against enforcing it where it does not work without. There's also no reason why uutils couldn't be less corporate while also having a corporate-unfriendly license. And good luck leading this discussion with anyone, if you're going to ad hominem right away.

this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2025
68 points (98.6% liked)

Rust

7063 readers
30 users here now

Welcome to the Rust community! This is a place to discuss about the Rust programming language.

Wormhole

!performance@programming.dev

Credits

  • The icon is a modified version of the official rust logo (changing the colors to a gradient and black background)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS