What an absolute shitshow
The real shitshow is it’s MIT licensing. Corporate takeover 101
How is it a takeover, if they write their own set of tools?
The gnu brained folks hate when we make our own tools.
Square that circle for us?
Have you ever publish a tool that already has a gnu counterpart? Even if you say it’s for learning or an experiment you still get hounded about it.
What an absolute shitshow
I’d say the month of June is actually a good time to be breaking and fixing things in a release that is due to come out in (checks notes) October.
I like staying up to date about open source but holy cow is there too many of these “omg they broke something in testing”. Yah, that’s the point.
No, it is not a good time. A project like Ubuntu should now be in freeze as they had about 3 months before release and definitely it should not have a break in something basic just because the language used to write the command break backword compatibilty
No, it is not a good time. A project like Ubuntu should now be in freeze as they had about 3 months before release
This bug was reported (and resolved by rolling back to the GNU coreutils version of
cp) on June 30, a little over 15 weeks prior to the scheduled release date.Which distros have a feature freeze that far in advance?
Ubuntu hasn’t even scheduled theirs for this release yet; if you edit that url to look at previous releases’ schedules you can see their feature freeze and debian import freezes are typically about 2 months prior to release. (See here for descriptions of all of the different types of freezes…)
I love rust, but I absolutely hate how it’s used to jam MIT licenses where GPL belongs. Maybe it’s time we consider using corpos tools against them, and use an AI to rewrite GNU utils to Rust, so that people can continue contributing to Rust while not feeding corps?
Edit: Though licensing AI software is iffy at best, you’ve got to own the copyright to something to licence it: Non-human productions are legally non-copyrightable. Also it might be better to just have humans do it anyway. The intent of my message was just that maybe we ought to deprive MIT-licensed projects from FOSS-motivated developers by providing Rust GPL alternatives to MIT/corporate Rust projects
Isn’t the MIT license independent of the choice of Rust?
Rust often ends up just being an excuse to rewrite software with corporate-friendly licenses without copyleft. That’s not necessarily true though, Lemmy itself is Rust & licenced under AGPL
You can use rust and still use the GPL.
My issue isn’t with Rust as a language at all, I quite enjoy making my projects with it. My issue is with “Rust rewrites” of GPL software, only to have those rewrites be licensed under MIT/Apache. To me it signifies that these rewrites were never about the safety features of Rust, but that they are attempts at pushing out the GPL
The project hasn’t had a stable release, and yes, it does certainly need more testing to uncover edge cases.
Yes, MIT bad, but one must not diss on the project just because it has been written in Rust.
I disagree with MIT License being bad. I agree on all other fronts of your statements.
Why don’t you think the MIT license is bad?
Why do you think the MIT License is bad? I am not the one making the claim it being bad, so I’m not the on in defending position. It’s an open source license and I like to use it too (granted my work is just little small hobby tools). I think the MIT License has pros and cons, but isn’t straight a bad license in this context.
Because it isn’t a free software license. Software licensed by the MIT license can be copied and made into proprietary software. Since (I hope) we agree proprietary software should be minimised licensing under a free software license ensures big tech can’t make there own corporate software from it without ever giving back.
It IS free software license. It just gives the freedom to turn it into proprietary too, in which case the new proprietary product is no longer licensed under MIT. Which in turn does not violate the MIT being free, as it became a different thing.
No. I’m talking about the free software foundations definition of free software. The mit license is an open source licence, not a free software license.
Anyway, I’m interested as to why you don’t think the MIT license is worse than the GPL.
Its not about being bad or worse or better, its being different that grants different rights. MIT is more permissive, which you may like or may not. Some people don’t like GPL in example, because you cannot mix it with proprietary license. Or they want to keep a change secret, which is a right I would want to give. I’m not saying its better or worse, but I want to give the people the right to do what they want. This can lead to better or worse outcome.
Its only worse than GPL, if you want to enforce all modifications to be Open Source too.
The majority of project are MIT licensed and it’s not even close.
People will blame Rust for the incompetence of Ubuntu team to adopt the uutils as default prematurely.
they broke something in testing. that’s not incompetence, that’s the whole point.
I will say the Rust stdlib seems to make TOCTOU bugs really easy to make for filesystem operations
But, yes, Ubuntu switching to a test project hurts it
That cp went really hard apparently!
