Licence is MIT / Apache, of course.

EDIT: of course the relicensing is the problem here. Alas we’re in an all-time low interest in Free and Open Source politics, ideologies, and organization so the Big Evil Corpos continue to do their thing, one cog per time.

  • Helix 🧬@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    16 hours ago

    I also wondered why this is a big news. Usually those tools are tried and tested over years of development and only run once a day or boot or even less. Don’t know if it has that much of an impact.

    It’s cool and all, kudos to the devs, but idk why it’s posted here and an article is written about it.

    • wewbull@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 hours ago

      It’s news because despite there already being a number of issues caused by Ubuntu transitioning to poorly done Rust ports common utils, they continue the practise.

      • verdare@piefed.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Haven’t those issues been found in pre-release software that’s months out from being pushed to the general public?

        • wewbull@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 hours ago

          No, they’re in Ubuntu 26.04 LTS.

          LTS! The stablest of the stable releases.

      • Tixo@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 hours ago

        I hate the fact that 30+ years old tools are switched to tools that are barley tasted and bug prone(as it was shown ).

    • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 hours ago

      I also wondered why this is a big news

      You think this is “big” news? An Ubuntu focused blog reporting on what Ubuntu is doing is not exactly the big time.

    • huey_m@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      16 hours ago

      I feel like there’s a lot of concern about more and more free software moving over to the MIT license.

      I honestly don’t know the ins and outs, but it’s probably relevant to people concerned about it.

      • InFerNo@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        16 hours ago

        That license allows you to take the source, make changes and keep them to yourself. Which is not in the spirit of open source imho.

        • verdare@piefed.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          8 hours ago

          Permissive licenses also allow corporations to build off of open source software without giving anything back to public. I don’t see why they’re entitled to profit off the free labor of a community they don’t contribute back to.

        • huey_m@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          13 hours ago

          This was my understanding, but I really am not in the loop enough to say it with certainty, so appreciate the confirmation. I agree, I think we’re seeing from contributions made by people like Valve that there’s real value in requiring derivative work to give back to the community it drew from. But again, I’m really not super well informed. I just tend to pick GNU options when available.