23
submitted 15 hours ago by nobody_1677@lemmy.world to c/linux@lemmy.ml

Highlights

  • Rust rewrite of GNU coreutils and sudo-rs
  • TPM-backed Full Disk Encryption now considered stable
  • More secure services (don't run as root if not needed, AppArmor profiles)
  • AppArmor prompting for snaps is still experiemental unfortunately
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] GnuLinuxDude@lemmy.ml 13 points 14 hours ago

Not interested in an MIT-licensed coreutils. Thanks, but no thanks!

[-] nobody_1677@lemmy.world 4 points 13 hours ago

I can understand MIT being an issue in some cases. For example, VSCode is a proprietary fork of the MIT open-source Code. If Microsoft wanted, they could stop publishing the MIT open source version. Of course that code would still exist as MIT, but development would slow down without Microsoft.

But I don't see uutils being MIT as an issue. It's primary goal is to be compatible with GNU coreutils. You can't really rug pull a project with a goal like that. And permissively licensed utils have been around thanks to BSD and it's never been an issue. You don't see companies like Apple using proprietary forked versions as benefit. The "value" they add is higher up the tech stack with their own truly proprietary stuff or open stuff that encourages lock-in to its ecosystem, like Swift.

[-] GnuLinuxDude@lemmy.ml 5 points 11 hours ago

And permissively licensed utils have been around thanks to BSD and it’s never been an issue.

The distinction is that BSD coreutils are not attempting to be a drop-in 1:1 compatible replacement of GNU coreutils. The Rust coreutils has already accomplished this with its inclusion into Ubuntu 26.04.

If I wanted a permissively licensed system, I'd use BSD. I don't, so I primarily use Linux. I think citing a proprietary OS like macOS as a reason why permissively licensed coreutils are OK is kind of funny. It's easy to forget that before before the GPL there were many incompatible UNIX systems developed by different companies, and IMO the GPL has kept MIT and BSD-licensed projects "Honest", so-to-speak. Without the GPL to keep things in check, we'd be back to how things were in the 80s.

So what's next on the docket for Ubuntu? A permissively licensed libc?

this post was submitted on 10 Apr 2026
23 points (96.0% liked)

Linux

63789 readers
765 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS