points by bikvfeee 4 days ago | 0 comments
To many of us it's not about the features which you obliquely refer to when you say "evolve" but about licensing. It's extremely concerning that we're replacing GPL stuff for non GPL, and just as concerning that so many folks don't recognise this point.
[–] thesuperbigfrog 1 day ago
[–] solyin 1 day ago
That is the problem. MIT isn't GPL. In our new AI powered future, we want the source so we can fix it ourselves.
[–] burnte 1 day ago
MIT is a source code license. If you have MIT licensed source code then you already have the source code and can fix it yourself. No different than GPL.
[–] gatlin 1 day ago
It is materially different to the GPL and inferior in all such ways.
[–] burnte 17 hours ago
I disagree on both points. The only difference is the lack of a requirement to share your changes under MIT. That makes it only inferior depending on your perspective. You are entirely allowed to feel it's inferior, but it's not FACTUALLY inferior, just different.
[–] dekhn 19 hours ago
I think it's time to recognize that copyleft as an idea is not great and LGPL makes the license even worse. I want licenses that don't have a core philosophy that attempts to overturn existing copyright.
[–] thesuperbigfrog 1 day ago
> That is the problem. MIT isn't GPL. In our new AI powered future, we want the source so we can fix it ourselves.
GPL would be ideal, MIT is okay, but in our new AI-powered future, we may not even need the source code:
https://bramble-apps.github.io/
Maybe all software will become open source or free software?
[–] lakeviewterrace 1 day ago
This is by design.
They are slow-rolling the cancellation of Stallman's connection to the OS because their first attempt failed.
In 10 years, no one will have heard of GNU after all components have been replaced with corporate clones.
[–] tomkarho 1 day ago
I find it hard to believe that all of this movement is because of Stallman. That seems so... petty.
[–] fwip 1 day ago
Less Stallman and more the GPL. Companies hate it.
[–] tomkarho 1 day ago
I can see that. I've been part of a conversation where GPL is treated like the son of satan because it requires giving back and no one seems to agree on the scope or what the license actually demands. So legal goes apeshit and management shits bricks because they might have to share some code.
[–] pantalaimon 1 day ago
GPLv3 is incompatible with embedded (Ubuntu Core) use cases
[–] direwolf20 1 day ago
no it isn't. Please don't spread FUD.
[–] Vaushite 3 days ago
Licensing is downstream of software existing. The person who actually writes software gets to make the license. If you want a GPL one you have to make that.
[–] bikvfeee 2 days ago
It already exists.
[–] warkdarrior 1 day ago
The default sudo (written in C) has an MIT license: https://www.sudo.ws/about/license/
Where is this GPL-licensed sudo that already exists?
[–] Vaushite 2 days ago
Is it better?
[–] jeremyjh 1 day ago
What is the GPL software that is being replaced?
[–] pantalaimon 1 day ago
Coreutils
[–] collinfunk 1 day ago
We still maintain GNU Coreutils upstream, FWIW. I had to beg Canonical to address bug reports on the version that they distribute, which was ignored after the switch to uutils.
For that reason I suggest switching to any other distribution. Of the ones I have interacted with, I have had good experiences with all of them.
[–] thrill 1 day ago
Guix?
[–] collinfunk 16 hours ago
It has always seemed interesting to me, but I haven't gotten a chance to give it any substantial use, yet.
[–] iknowstuff 1 day ago
Hardly relevant to TFA though
[–] ForHackernews 1 day ago
Maybe the GPL people need to get with the times, then. LLVM exists largely because the GCC people were so obstinate. I'm a big believer in copyleft software, but it only works if people want to use your software with their projects.
[–] ahartmetz 1 day ago
LLVM was supposed to be a virtual machine initially, hence the (original) name: Low-level virtual machine. The direction that it took, and especially the development of Clang: that was at least partially because of GCC's intentional anti-modularity.
[–] jcranmer 1 day ago
LLVM was never meant to be a virtual machine, which is the reason why its name was ultimately changed. (It's closer to an instantiation of the C abstract machine, which is where the "virtual machine" came from.)
[–] ahartmetz 1 day ago
AFAIK, being a flexible JIT compiler (for C-like languages, not Java) was a large part of the idea. The pivot to static compilation only happened "accidentally" in the first few years until the by then pretty broken JIT part was officially removed. Correct me if I'm wrong.
[–] jcranmer 16 hours ago
You're wrong. See e.g. https://llvm.org/pubs/2002-12-LattnerMSThesis.pdf, the original thesis proposing LLVM.
LLVM was always trying to pitch itself as a whole-lifetime optimization system. In practice, this meant focusing on LTO and PGO compilation modes. The idea of runtime or idle-time optimization were always kind of a next-todo step rather than anything actually implemented.
sudo-rs is MIT-licensed: https://github.com/trifectatechfoundation/sudo-rs/blob/main/...
Perhaps you are thinking of uutils? https://github.com/uutils/coreutils/blob/main/LICENSE