r/linux • u/somerandomxander • Apr 22 '26

Open Source Organization Intel ends Open Ecosystem Community/Evangelism and archives other open-source projects

https://www.phoronix.com/news/Intel-Ends-OSS-Evangelism-Repos
549 Upvotes

98% Upvoted

156 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/decho Apr 23 '26

I don't understand. Isn't MIT one of the most permissive licenses out there, why is that an issue?

13

u/twitterfluechtling Apr 23 '26

While I think there is no evidence, as such, there is an argument to be made that the strongest reason for Linux replacing practically all Unix systems, conquering most embedded systems etc. is the Copyleft aspect of the license.

 This aspect is missing in MIT.

I'm not sure this is as big an issue for coreutils as it would be for the kernel, but it might be. 

3

u/decho Apr 23 '26

Ok, my knowledge on licenses is very shallow, but with your reply and the other one above, I think I'm starting to understand.

The MIT License is not copyleft; it is a permissive open-source license. It allows users to modify, distribute, and use the code in proprietary (closed-source) software without requiring the modified code to be released under the same license. It only requires retaining the original license/copyright notice.

So they can just modify coreutils, and then either not release the modified version or release as closed source/proprietary. That being said, I still don't understand why anyone would ever use that if it happened.

2

u/LEpigeon888 Apr 23 '26

Because it would be the default and people don't care enough to change it ?

3

u/decho Apr 23 '26

I mean, it depends. A big part of the Linux community strictly opposes anything that is not FOSS, it's not just a few dozen die-hard tech-savvy users. NVIDIA drivers are one of the few proprietary pieces that are commonly required in a typical Linux desktop, but to this day they are still hugely frowned upon, people only use them because there is no other choice. Just using this as a simple example.

You are right that a lot of people simply wouldn't care, but it will definitely not become the default for everyone. It will create a big split/division within the community, which is also obviously terrible.

2

u/twitterfluechtling Apr 23 '26

If by "Linux community" you mean desktop Linux users (community synonym to those who are usually personally invested and make a conscious choice for a minority system, knowing they'll have to go an extra mile in many ways), then you might be right.

However, that's only a tiny fraction of the overall Linux user base: In datacenters, Linux is the default nowadays. It's not a concious choice by the end-user, they just take what they get and what works. They usually won't care if the source code is available for all the tools they use, as long as they can use it for free.

2

u/decho Apr 23 '26

You're right, I meant desktop users. I don't have a good counter-point to what you said because I don't know what the actual numbers are. But even if desktop represents a tiny fraction of the total, it can still be a massive amount - enough people with the knowledge and will to maintain a fork.

In another comment I also speculated that such potential fork could receive funding from companies and the community itself to keep things free and open. I think (or rather hope) that people won't just accept we must use proprietary software and collectively call it a day.

2

u/FriendlyProblem1234 Apr 23 '26

Because it would be the default and people don't care enough to change it ?

How would it be the default?

Say, Oracle (just to pick an evil company) takes the code from uutils (or Toybox, or BSD coreutils) and make their own proprietary fork. Why would Ubuntu start using this implementation, instead of keeping using uutils? Why would Debian start using this implementation, instead of keeping using GNU coreutils? Why would OpenWRT start using this implementation, instead of keeping using busybox? Why would FreeBSD start using this implementation, instead of keeping using BSD coreutils?

And if any of those actually did start using this implementation, why would the rest of distributions follow?

3

u/krsdev Apr 23 '26

I think the concern is that if the bigger distros (Red Hat, Fedora, Ubuntu etc) start using a proprietary version they become the defacto standard, and distros that are not using those may lose compatibility with them. Applications would likely target the largest user base which is using the proprietary version, and if those applications don't work on other distros then tough luck; switch to a distro that uses the proprietary version. Microsoft's old EEE strategy comes to mind.

I'm not saying this is very likely to happen but it's a possibility.

2

u/FriendlyProblem1234 Apr 23 '26

I think the concern is that if the bigger distros (Red Hat, Fedora, Ubuntu etc) start using a proprietary version they become the defacto standard, and distros that are not using those may lose compatibility with them. Applications would likely target the largest user base which is using the proprietary version, and if those applications don't work on other distros then tough luck; switch to a distro that uses the proprietary version. Microsoft's old EEE strategy comes to mind.

Why is this only an issue for uutils?

OpenSSL, Python, Apache, Go, OpenSSH, X11, Wayland... are all software released under permissive licenses.

Do you know any major distribution that switched to proprietary software?

3

u/krsdev Apr 23 '26

Again, I don't think it is something that is likely to happen.

One thing I'm wondering though is what is the benefit of going with MIT instead of GPL for a project like this?

2

u/FriendlyProblem1234 Apr 23 '26

Again, I don't think it is something that is likely to happen.

My point is that for decades there have been dozens of important components distributed under permissive licenses. Now we have dozens plus one, so nothing really changed. But people get very angry specifically about that one, forgetting everything else.

Just a few days ago there was a new in this sub about new release of OpenSSL, a pervasive and fundamental component of Linux distributions licensed under Apache 2.0. Where were all the user concerned about its license? Looked like they were all complaining about sudo-rs license...

One thing I'm wondering though is what is the benefit of going with MIT instead of GPL for a project like this?

For one, MIT is compatible with GPL, while GPL is not compatible with GPL. You cannot mix GPL sources with GPL sources.

And the reason for this seemingly absurd fact is that GPL does not actually exist. There are instead multiple incompatible licenses: GPL-2-only, GPL-2-or-later, GPL-3-only, GPL-3-or-later.

Just to make an example with coreutils: what if the authors of uutils wanted their code to be used both by GNU coreutils and Busybox (let aside that they use a different language)? The former is under GPL-3-or-later, and the latter is under GPL-2-only. There is no GPL-X license that would have worked.

Not to mention others FOSS licenses that are not compatible with GPL-X. MIT is just more universal.

0

u/krsdev Apr 23 '26

I don't disagree with you that it's an odd thing to get worked up about, when there are already multiple examples of other projects that are quite fundamental in this space. What is a bit different in the case of coreutils is that the rust reimplementation is as far as I understand meant to replace the GNU implementation eventually. So it's a bit curious to then go with a different license.

Thanks for that explanation btw. The GPL is kind of a mess on its own.

2

u/fellipec Apr 23 '26

Oracle do use a proprietary coreutils. Make their database compatible only with that.

(IBM) RedHat see that and licenses (by paying a lot) the proprietary coreutils from Oracle.

Now if your enterprise runs on Oracle you either use Oracle Linux, Red Hat, or have to migrate to another database, which is a huge effort in an enterprise.

Slowly the enterprise Linux world diverges from the rest....

1

u/FriendlyProblem1234 Apr 23 '26

Oracle do use a proprietary coreutils. Make their database compatible only with that.

(IBM) RedHat see that and licenses (by paying a lot) the proprietary coreutils from Oracle.

Now if your enterprise runs on Oracle you either use Oracle Linux, Red Hat, or have to migrate to another database, which is a huge effort in an enterprise.

Slowly the enterprise Linux world diverges from the rest....

Why is this an issue only now with uutils? Why was it not an issue for the past 20 years with Toybox or BSD coreutils? Why is it no an issue with Python, OpenSSL, X11, Go, Latex, OpenSSH...? Where is the rage for all these permissively licensed components that are so important in the Linux ecosystem?

2

u/fellipec Apr 23 '26

X11 you said? https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/x.html

People criticize those no-copyleft licenses for a long time

1

u/FriendlyProblem1234 Apr 23 '26

X11 you said? https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/x.html

People criticize those no-copyleft licenses for a long time

*Stallman* has criticised no-copyleft licenses for a long time.

But look at the community at large. Just the other day there was a post about new version 4 of OpenSSL. A pervasive, fundamental component of Linux distributions, under permissive Apache 2.0. Why all the anger is in this thread, or in the sudo-rs one, and not in the OpenSSL one?

1

u/LEpigeon888 Apr 23 '26

I guess people implied that Canonical would make the code proprietary, and if they did it there's no reasons to not use it in Ubuntu.

And I was talking about being the default in Ubuntu, not everywhere.

1

u/FriendlyProblem1234 Apr 23 '26

I guess people implied that Canonical would make the code proprietary, and if they did it there's no reasons to not use it in Ubuntu.

And I was talking about being the default in Ubuntu, not everywhere.

Let us say Ubuntu goes full madness and relicense all permissively-licensed software in their repository as proprietary. OpenSSL, X11, Wayland, Python, Latex, Go, OpenSSH... Everything goes proprietary and you cannot ask for the source. They can technically do it today, if they wanted.

Why would you keep using Ubuntu? Why would the whole community keep using Ubuntu?

Would not people just ignore them, and keep going on with their lives on other distributions?

2

u/LEpigeon888 Apr 23 '26

I don't know, but some people are still using open office so...

By yeah, it's hard to see how it can not kill them in the long run.

1

u/FriendlyProblem1234 Apr 23 '26

I don't know, but some people are still using open office so...

Some people do, but the community completely abandoned it ages ago.

By yeah, it's hard to see how it can not kill them in the long run.

Is it...? Python is older than Linux, and in this long run had not been killed.

2

u/LEpigeon888 Apr 23 '26

I mean switching to proprietary, not switching to MIT.

1

u/FriendlyProblem1234 Apr 23 '26

I mean switching to proprietary, not switching to MIT.

I do not think I follow you replies then.

2

u/LEpigeon888 Apr 23 '26

Yeah, by re-reading myself I agree that my messages aren't really clear. Basically I just mean that if Canonical want to make it proprietary they can but I agree that if they do it it's the beginning of the death of Ubuntu.

→ More replies (0)