127
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 02 Feb 2026
127 points (92.6% liked)
Linux
12207 readers
252 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 wasn't aware that coreutils was going somewhere.
The availability of a replacement with a permissive license allows businesses to use it without giving anything back to the community.
What this leads to in the long run is open source projects starved for resources, and businesses pouring their dev time only into their own business-specific forks, without sharing their code upstream.
Businesses can already create their own forks of GPL-licensed software and not contribute their changes to the upstream project; in fact, they do not even have to share their code with anyone at all if they use it internally do not distribute binaries. However, they are incentivized to share their changes, even if they do not have to, because if they do not then merging upstream changes will become increasingly difficult.
No they can't, at least not legally. Part of using GPL software is that you need to include the GPL with any changes you make.
It's the entire point of the license and the concept behind copyleft.
You only need to provide source code to your users. There’s no need to provide a public git repository to the world.
You can fork GPL software and sell it. If one of your customers asks, you can send them a copy of the source code on a DVD. This is all the GPL requires.
Reread that quote, and you will see that I was saying that just because they are required to distribute the source code with binaries--which they are only required to do if they distribute binaries--does not mean that they have to take any steps to contribute the changes they've made to the upstream project.
You're partially right. They don't have to "contribute back" by submitting pull requests or something similar.
They do have to contribute back by making their changes publicly available. Whether upstream uses those changes is up to them.
I'm going to ignore you now since all of your replies have shown me you're a moron. Peace.
I would rather be a moron than someone who calls for others to be tarred and feathered over their choice of an open source software license of all things.