89
Rust Coreutils cp Ended Up Breaking Ubuntu Image Builds With Latest Incompatibility
(www.phoronix.com)
this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2026
89 points (90.1% liked)
Linux
66287 readers
281 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
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
I argue that using MIT will mostly result in a worse outcome than the GPL since our goal should always be having as much FOSS software as possible. Allowing people to make proprietry software from open source software results in less open source software.
No, it doesn't result in less open source. It results in more proprietary. You have the same amount of open source as before and didn't LOSE anything. The MIT License allows for stuff that wouldn't be possible otherwise and it is easier to understand and teach too. I argue that using MIT does not automatically or mostly result in worse outcomes than if they used GPL. Mostly it works fine.
That does not mean MIT is perfect. Like every license, it has its own strengths and weakness and should be considered like any other license. Also you can still go from MIT to GPL, in case you change your mind later and want to enforce GPL on any project based on it, but not other way round.
Not nessesarily think about comparing macos with aosp.
Since android used linux which is licensed under the GLP they had to make it open source and they contributed back to the open source community.
Macos on the other hand used a lot of software from freebsd and other bsd projects. Since freebsd isn't free software macos never contributed back to the community since they didn't have to.
Not using the GPL can result in less open source.