Notices by Michał Fita (michalfita@mastodon.social)

@amszmidt @javier_salcedo May I know where's that "Canonicals own accord"?

@javier_salcedo I think this is the case of "because we wanted to do it". However, saying so it's worth to mention their efforts found bugs in original implementation. On that ground, maybe it was worth it.

@javier_salcedo IMVHO #Canonical's decision comes from maintainability angle. Original `coreutils` are old code and it's harder and harder to find maintainers over time where you have to worry about not introducing new bugs. Whole Canonical is very pro-Rust.

Now, some claim it's licensing attack to move core distro component from GPL to MIT letting them keep commercial changes (for example in #Ubuntu #Core) for themselves.

@pankajpatro703 One of the reasons why #Rust can be so widely adopted by businesses is the tradition to license crate as MIT + Apache 2.0.

With a few exception I can't use GPL 3 at work, so in result I don't contribute to such. GPL 3 is a trap for a business doing proprietary code.

I have to ear for my bread and bed, so I work for companies and corporations and I use source code at work. MIT or Apache let me - in exchange I contribute where I can.

I'd prefer #Rust steer clear from #GPL.

@joel It would mean all software is always open-source... yeah, not going to happen.

Traps in GPLv3 are serious, one of them all patents being "invalidated" (implies irrevocable license to any patent of the author) - no sane company would risk it.

Then with very strong anti-tivoization claims it prevents the software from use in devices that cannot be freely reprogrammed by the users (this is long topic of why/when/who).

IMHO GPLv3 went too far. Linus called it completely different licence.