this post was submitted on 06 May 2025
49 points (91.5% liked)
Linux
7395 readers
393 users here now
A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system
Also check out:
Original icon base courtesy of [email protected] 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
Is that good or bad? What license are they using instead?
Edit: looks like they're using MIT, but I can't say I really understand the implications of that change
Basically, Expat-like licenses do not use the copyleft system: When you distribute a project that's copyleft licensed, you must give the exact same rights you were given (including the source code, license terms, etc). To resume this in 1 quote "the rights of one ends where the rights of the other begin"
It's generally not great as most non-GPL licenses allow for keeping changes from the public. GPL requires changes being made to GPL source to be released under GPL. Depending on the details some non-GPL licenses allow for creating closed source forks without releasing anything to the public. This is what allows Android OEMs to keep AOSP forks with changes that never see the light of day. In this day and age, seeing what we see with corporations corporating, we probably want more GPL than less. Maybe Rust coreutils are worth the tradeoff, I don't know.
Thank you for the explainer I appreciate it :)