The correct title should be "Ubuntu explores replacing gnu utils with MIT licenced uutils".
this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2025
107 points (92.8% liked)
Linux
52665 readers
1435 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 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Waiting for Canonical to up sell proprietary utils features by subscription. Ubuntu's regular release cycles were brilliant in 2004 when there weren't a lot of alternatives but why does it still exist?
Sorry, "tee" is not part of the basic Ubuntu package. Do you want to unlock premium coreutils for the cheap price of 19.99$ p.m.? Alternatively, upgrade your Ubuntu pro to pro-double-plus-good for 10$ p.m.
What does this have to do with MIT licensing?
I'm mixed on it. If it is more secure/safe then that's a good thing, but if it's done because it's MIT-licensed instead of GPL-licensed, then that could possibly be concerning.
On the one hand, Toybox exists. So, the non-copyleft license bs isn't new. On the other hand, toybox afaik isnt aiming to treat "deviations with GNu as bugs". Almost feels hostile-takeover-ish though I know that almost certinly isn't the idea behindbit.
If this ends in proprietization bs I'm going to throw hands.
My scepticism is that this should've been done within the coreutils project, or at least very closely affiliated. This isn't an area of the linux technical stack that we should tolerate being made distro-specific, especially when the licensing is controlled by a single organisation that famously picks and chooses its interpretation of "FOSS" to suit its profit margins.
On a purely technical level, GNU coreutils should very seriously consider moving to rust if only to counter alternatives before it's too late. While these utilities work well in C (and usually stay secure thanks to the Unix philosophy limiting the project scope), FOSS projects are continuing to struggle with finding new contributors as younger devs are more likely to use modern systems languages like Go and Rust. Not to mention that any project using Rust as a marketing tool will appeal to anyone rightfully concerned about hardening their system.
uutils is not distro-specific.
I for one welcome our rust overlords
I prefer a glibc replacement.
the deGPLification of the Linux ecosystem ffs
Okay, I'm not a fan of this either but let's not get too worried about this. Everyone's known Ubuntu is a joke for a long time and they don't really have much influence on even several of their downstreams, let alone the rest of the ecosystem.
I think Ubuntu has a lot of influence in industry
I would love this news if it didn't move away from the GPL.
Mass move to MIT is just empowering enshittification by greedy companies.
What does the license change actually mean? What are the differences?
The best example I could point to would be BSD. Unlike Linux, the BSD kernel was BSD (essentially MIT) -licensed. This allowed Apple to take their code and build OSX and a multi-billion dollar company on top of it, giving sweet fuck all back the community they stole from.
That's the moral argument: it enables thievery.
The technical argument is one of practicality. MIT-licensed projects often lead to proprietary projects (see: Apple, Android, Chrome, etc) that use up all the oxygen in an ecosystem and allow one company to dominate where once we had the latitude to use better alternatives.
- Step 1 is replacing coreutils with uutils.
- Step 2 is Canonical, Google, or someone else stealing uutils to build a proprietary "fuutils" that boasts better speeds, features, or interoperation with $PROPRIETARY_PRODUCT, or maybe even a new proprietary kernel.
- Step 3 is where inevitably uutils is abandoned and coreutils hasn't been updated in 10 years. Welcome to 1978, we're back to using UNIX.
The GPL is the tool that got us here, and it makes these exploitative techbros furious that they can't just steal our shit for their personal profit. We gain nothing by helping them, but stand to lose a great deal.
Thanks for your explanation.
The code can be taken and used in close source projects
And how does this hurt all of us who use it for open source projects?
Competitive improvements the company makes make be kept secret, re packaged, and sold without making contributions to the src code.
Basically embrace, extend, extinguish
Imagine a contributor of the project. He would have been fixing the bug for free and give the work to the public project. Right before he submits the code change, he sees an ad from a big tech bro: "Hiring. Whoever can fix this bug gets this job and a sweet bonus." He hesitated and worked for the company instead.
Now that he is the employee of the company. He can't submit the same bug fix to the open source project because it is now company property. The company's product is bug free, and the open source counterpart remains buggy.
means it can also be captured by a corpo takeover and taken private
It can be forked by anyone, but what is already out there will always be there.
Until you're left with choosing between an abandoned open source version and an up to date closed source blob.
To give you an example, if git was under the MIT license instead of GPL , then Microsoft can silently add incompatible features to GitHub without anyone knowing. The regular git client appears to work for a while. Then they start advertising msgit with some extra GitHub features and shortcuts. Once they get to 50% adoption they simply kill the open source version off.
If GitHub required a special client to be installed tomorrow… I would have to concede and use it. It’s GPL that stops that because everyone has to get every new feature.
When Slack was first rolling out the dev team in my office of 50 people we all hated it. Thankfully it had an IRC bridge so we could use Slack through IRC. It was seemingly the same experience as before except more business users were in the chat rooms. Once the Corp side of the business were onboard, they dropped IRC support, forcing us to use their clients.
Now it doesn’t matter that rules or laws or privacy invasion they do. They have captured the companies communications and can hold it hostage.
I’ve seen it again and again. When is the last time you downloaded an MP3 file?
Genuinely what negative ramifications could come of uutils being MIT licensed? The kernel license isn't going to change and I really don't see how companies can abuse uutils for a profit.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Time for Mecha-Stallman to declare war.
It's funny since don't these core utils come from bsd meaning the new license is more like the original license than gpl is like either. So didn't gnu effectively steal the code and change the license for political reasons?
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›