Conversation

Jarkko Sakkinen

Edited 5 days ago
Canonical feels an adversary of GPLv3 and/or somwhat shady actor when it comes to free software.
1
0
1

@jarkko may I ask what makes you say that?

1
0
0
@zygoon Sorry, I modified the phrasing in order to make it explicit that not throwing any hard truths :-)

The most recent example that raises my concerns is uutils:

1. Not everything has to be GPL
2. There's no things wrong using Rust or doing a Rust rewrite.
3. Cheapest overall R&D cost on doing that would be:
3a. Use compatible license, which is GPLv3 and look up from the sources.
3b. Use GPLv2 which can be deployed as a blob pretty much everywhere, and last GPLv2 snapshot of GNU utilities as a reference.

Instead money is invested on not having to use GPL.

Everybody can do what they want but if I were to install Ubuntu before doing that I'd want to understand motivations and goals in technical decisions such as uutils.
2
0
0
@zygoon I'm even cool not liking GPL. Otherwise I would not have any Apple products :-) I get Apple's motivations on what they are doing.
0
0
0

@jarkko isn't this because rust people use MPL for linking freedom? I don't do rust but I think it's just the ecosystem standard.

1
0
0
@zygoon Library crates are like that yes but executables can be whatever. And if the concern is that there might come a day that some of the code might be outsourced to a library crate, even CLA would be a more sane idea IMHO :-) At least the end product have likely have shipped with less bugs.
2
0
0

@jarkko and what's the issue if the library (crate?) and the executable have the same license?

0
0
0
@zygoon Yeah, all this said I don't "hate" Canonical, it's all just what I see and how I understand it. I hope they do well. Just wanted to clear this up :-)
0
0
0