61
cpx Introduced as a Faster, Modern Replacement for Linux cp
(linuxiac.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2026
61 points (94.2% liked)
Linux
12379 readers
597 users here now
A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)
Also, check out:
Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I appreciate that it's not trying to replace
cpbut the lack of copyleft is always disconcerting.yeah, like, supposedly it can be hard to use GPL with some rust dependencies, but the MPL is right there as a decent compromise.
how can it be hard? permissive licenses are compatible to the GPL, the opposite not though
Static linking makes things difficult. I'm not sure what the details are, that's just what I've heard from Rust developers.
Because of static linking, a single GPL dependency turns the entire resulting binary into a GPL licensed one, so yeah just use something like the MPL in that case (Or EUPL, which I hear is similar)
LGPL has the same issue, since it only provides an exception for dynamic linking. But honestly that's all an issue for lawyers and judges to sort out (I bet you could win in court with an argument that dynamically linking to GPL is actually fine).
I like and use rust, and I actively try to use permissive licenses for libraries and copy left for binaries. Just makes sense in my head.
I always find choosing a license confusing.
If you're up for it, I would love to read why you use this guideline.
I want people to use the software I write, and people don't want dependencies in their projects that are gpl because you either need to change your project to gpl or go through a very tedious process of providing object files for the entire project. That's why I use mit for libraries.
However, I don't want to allow companies to just take my finished binaries and resell them as their services, so I use GPL for binaries and apps. They are free to reimplement the app using the libraries, but I at least want them to work for it a little.
Also, I have found it easier to get contributions to projects that are licensed under mit than gpl, though this might just be insufficient sample size.
Food for thought. Thank you!
What's the risk here though, a company like Amazon makes a closed source version of it?
If it was a file format library, or something like a web server I'd get it. But stuff like
cpare effectively just userspace wrappers around kernel APIs.