I don’t think that is a problem. As long as the GNU tools behave as the original ones, that’s okay. If someone wants to target Ubuntu extensions of the tools, they can. Also when did any Linux distribution anytime locked up their own version of MIT tools without sharing the source code?
It just feels like people are making up issues that aren’t.
Also when did any Linux distribution anytime locked up their own version of MIT tools without sharing the source code?
I mean RHEL has been kinda doing it with GPL for a few years. They share the code with you if you have a subscription, since they have to, but if you share it with anyone, they’ll void your subscription contract. With MIT you can skip that scheme altogether and just make version closed source.
Like… Why else would they use MIT here? They could have just used GPL for the Rust coreutils.
I don’t think that is a problem. As long as the GNU tools behave as the original ones, that’s okay. If someone wants to target Ubuntu extensions of the tools, they can. Also when did any Linux distribution anytime locked up their own version of MIT tools without sharing the source code?
It just feels like people are making up issues that aren’t.
I mean RHEL has been kinda doing it with GPL for a few years. They share the code with you if you have a subscription, since they have to, but if you share it with anyone, they’ll void your subscription contract. With MIT you can skip that scheme altogether and just make version closed source.
Like… Why else would they use MIT here? They could have just used GPL for the Rust coreutils.
Because GPL is not compatible with everything.
GPL for separate tools is compatible with everything. It only becomes an issue if you’re shipping a custom version of a GPL tool.