Why accepting Uutils running under an MIT license instead of an GPL license is dangerous!
ā Rust š 2025-05-02 š¤ surdeus šļø 4
Warning
Info
Hello Community,
I'm (re)opening this debate because it seems impossible to reply to this original post.
" Iām shocked the Rust community is pushing an MIT licensed Rust rewrite of GNU coreutils"
For some reason discussions around this very pressing issue are being closed without there being a resolve. However, I think there is a lot more to say about this and there is a lot of information missing or being ignored which play into this licensing issue.
The licensing issue around Uutils and whether its being kept under a MIT license or if it becomes licensed und GPL will determine the future of a very large amount of Open Source software if not the entire Open Source community.
There is a saying: "If you understand what the end goal is, you can see and understand the steps which lead up to achieving said goal."
The End goal here is the elimination of GPL and Open Source Software as a whole, the Corporate takeover of the entire digital World and, especially complete Corporate control over every piece of software on every PC based system. The only way to achieve this is to turn Linux into proprietary software, close the source and then charge for it.
Everyone supporting this is essentially asking to have their freedom of choice to be taken away from them.
This needs to be recognised and addressed accordingly and not just pushed aside by closing relevant discussions.
I am a PC user for more than 30 years now and I have seen quite a few "attacks" on Open Source Software, mainly from Corporate players such as Microsoft or Apple pushing for a dominance of proprietary Software. Attempts to undermine GPL or Open Source solutions have a long standing history, purely for Corporate interests and attempts to dominate and control the Software market and in the last decade Google has also played a significant role in pushing for this development.
For Linux as a client Desktop this was always only a side note, however, especially Microsoft has always tried to take over Linux users and basically make Linux as a client Desktop Operating system for home PC system disappear including blunt attempts to simply "buy" the Linux/Unix kernel with plans to put it into an archive and let the system die out. That was around 1998 when Microsoft essentially lost a court case over attempting to build a monopoly for its Internet Explorer and close the market for all other Web Browser developers.
The only protection for Linux and its Kernel at the time was the fact the its GNU coreutils are run under a GPL Open Source license. Without that protection through its GPL license there would be no Linux today because Microsoft would have swallowed it and locked it away. Microsofts main interest at the time was to also take over the Web Server market and establish its Windows NT based ISS as the main system for web servers. We know today, Microsoft did not succeed with their plans 27 years ago.
By keeping Uutils licensed under a MIT license and Linux distributions adopting MIT licensed Uutils this protection is gone because MIT licensed software can easily be turned into closed source proprietary software and this happened to most promising Software projects which had the potential to be commercialised. An MIT license DOES NOT PREVENT THIS! A GPL license specifically prohibits this and this is the significant difference here.
The much more concerning issue that comes with this licensing problematic is not so much related to Linux client PC but much more to Linux run Web Servers.
Unlike with home PC's, where MS Windows dominates the home computer sphere, The Web Server market is 90% build on Linux systems despite previously mentioned attempts by Microsoft to change that.
To me the rewrite of the Linux kernel under the MIT licensed Uutils looks a lot like a renewed attempt to "get Linux out of the way" and Corporate Software attempting another takeover of control over the entire digital sphere by playing the long game, slowly and patiently tiptoeing Linux out of its protection it still has under its GPL Open Source license.
If the Rust community and the Uutils development team and all their contributors continue on the take course I am afraid the awakening at the end of this journey will be the loss of everything that is Open Source Software and the ground breaking innovations which come with the protection of a GPL license.
Have you not learned during the covid-19 lock-downs what happens if you give up your freedoms?
2 posts - 2 participants
š·ļø rust_feed