75
Rust Coreutils Continues Working Toward 100% GNU Compatibility, Proving Trolls Wrong
(www.phoronix.com)
this post was submitted on 02 Feb 2026
75 points (90.3% liked)
Linux
11701 readers
460 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Whose opinion do you actually think is going to be changed? All I see here is a lot of preaching to the choir here. If I were a uutils developer, I would stay far away from all of these discussions because of how much hate is directed towards it.
If they do not adopt the license you prefer, would it be better for them to just go ahead and abandon the whole effort? Are there efforts really so valueless simply because they chose the license that they did? Moreover, is dictating to volunteers what license they should be using for their code what you think this community should be about?
You claim that it is important that people make tons noise in every single post on uutils because it will prevent a bad scenario down the line, but could you detail what that scenario is? Because people like to make allusions to such a scenario constantly but refuse to get specific and then engage on a discussion on the specifics.
Incidentally, your choice of Redis is an example exactly illustrates my point that this license is not a gigantic deal it shows that the worst case scenario is... uutils being forked. Heck, it can even be forked at any time with a copyleft license precisely because its existing language is permissive.
I only see the hate towards this project being either from anti-rust trolls, or misdirected hate from Ubuntu towards switching to a new coreutils implementation on an LTS release before full compatibility has been achieved. I don't see any hate in regards to licensing.
Their efforts have value, but the value is limited by its current license. MIT licenced projects have a recurring history of being improved privately without those improvements going back into the project. It leads to a lot of duplicated, wasted effort. There may also be the potential for patent issues with the licence. No one wants to deal with some litigious asshole or company going after the project turning it radioactive.
I think bringing up issues with the project is definitely something that should be brought up. As for dictating which particular licence is used, that's up to the contributors, but that doesn't mean others can't give their input. It's also likely that most of the contributors will want a license that allows the project to safely continue into the future.
I thought the Redis example was a good example of this.
I continue on this point further down, but I'm leaving this right now to stay on topic with redis.
The community was fractured. A report by an enterprise support company said 75% of existing redis users were motivated to seek alternatives. I'm not sure what number you would consider to be a gigantic deal, but Redis certainly thought it was, otherwise they would not have reverted back to the previous license.
It can be forked, but relicensing can mean needing permission from every contributor of the original, and/or removing all contributions from those who don't agree to the new licence. Not to mention the community fracturing, and legal issues. It's a massive effort that can be prevented by the original project choosing a better license earlier.
Well this comment is probably getting too long, so I'll simply point you towards the busybox licensing drama.
I agree that being concerned is reasonable. The reason for my fervor is that I find it unreasonable for every single discussion of uutils to be flooded with complaints about the license--that are often very toxic, e.g. reference to uutils using a "cuck license" as one commenter did above--to the point that there are few discussions of anything else.
Then make a top level comment that kicks off the type of discussion you want.
For all your comments, not a single one was a reply to the post itself. Lots of comments presenting your POV (totally fair), others that call the contributions of others noise because you think their POV is low value and over represented.
Your posting style may come from a good place, but it’s very adjacent to sealioning. Be the change that you want to see, not a comment warrior creating engagement in every comment thread where someone on the internet is wrong.
It is not just that these complaints are noise, but that they contribute to a general environment of toxicity by complaining about other people working on a project they are passionate about, which is something I abhor. To the extent that I am coming across as being toxic myself (which is not an unreasonable viewpoint in many, but not all, cases), I consider that to be me holding up a mirror of the comment I am responding to.
You did not address the core issue, which is that you engage with many comment threads negatively and on an individual basis, providing a cyclical viewpoint. This is creating engagement for each “toxic” thread individually instead of confidently asserting a PoV and letting it rest. I understand that from your perspective that it’s fair to lower yourself to their perceived level, but it’s still bloating the toxic side of the discourse instead of helping it move on.
Drop a wall of well reasoned text and let it stand on its own. Or provide the type of comment that you want to see at the top level and be the change you want.
Case in point, I’ve said what I wanted to say, have found myself restating it once, and this comment is my peace out. A good day to you!