105
Rust Coreutils cp Ended Up Breaking Ubuntu Image Builds With Latest Incompatibility
(www.phoronix.com)
this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2026
105 points (88.9% liked)
Linux
66405 readers
380 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The project hasn't had a stable release, and yes, it does certainly need more testing to uncover edge cases.
Yes, MIT bad, but one must not diss on the project just because it has been written in Rust.
The problem isn't the language. It's the cargo cult that surrounds it.
I see what you did there
I disagree with MIT License being bad. I agree on all other fronts of your statements.
MIT is terrible if it replaces current GPL projects. Companies will always provide their spyware infested proprietary version of the exact same thing which have one or two additional features, making open source software always behind rhe propruetary counterparts. See: Chromium->Google Chrome, Aosp->any Android os vendor
Great projects have used MIT without any issues. Godot for instance, which may also be needed, I don't know if games made by godot could be closed source if it would use gnu license for instance.
Godot didn't replace an existing broadly used GPL game engine, so this is irrelevant.
The logic was that with a mit license companies will provide a copy of the software infected with spyware leaving the open source project behind.
Explain why that hasn't happened to godot.
No, the logic was that replacing a GPL project with an MIT project is bad.
Because Godot is already quite ibferior to its proprietary alternatives, atleast in popularity. If godot was The game engine that everyone uses, proprietary ones will come and try to have it. They can have all the godot features as well as something new from their side
Could you provide some examples when that had happened?
I'm looking up famous projects using mit license and in any of those that had happened.
Lua, node.js, jQuery....
Even X11 which was indeed replaced by other system.... Wyland, which also uses MIT license.
Programming languages and other developer tools are very much less affected by this, since being open source is mostly a requirement for a programming language in most people's eyes. I wouldn't even learn a proprietary programming language when there are open ones. Being proprietary make it lose its appeal very much.
About peoprietary X11 and wayland... For whom are companies making them for? Linux users? Do you think any distro will switch to it? But i'm pretty sure most companues copy parts of code from such projects to use in theirs.
I gave Aosp- Vendor Android and chrome-chromium as examples in the beggining. Also if only linux kernel was GPLv3, android would be way more proprietary bloat free.
Unfortunately companies have even done this exact same thing even with GPL, illegally, and got away with it because open source devs usually can't bother to file lawsuits to companies in another country
Why don't you think the MIT license is bad?
Why do you think the MIT License is bad? I am not the one making the claim it being bad, so I'm not the on in defending position. It's an open source license and I like to use it too (granted my work is just little small hobby tools). I think the MIT License has pros and cons, but isn't straight a bad license in this context.
I guess it makes coreutils vulnerable to EEE. Corps with significant stakes in Linux would be able to extend the API with proprietary functions, build ecosystems on top of that, and lock out independent development.
Imagine being unable to distribute a Linux based OS that is compatible with most of the world without proprietary age verification built in for example.
If its proprietary, then it can't be distributed in an Open Source system anyway. We are free to use the Open Source version instead. I'm actually in favor of companies having the option to do what they want with the code, that is true Open Source in my opinion. In example a different distribution or even Microsoft takes the coreutils, and makes changes and then distributes it as proprietary software. We wouldn't need to use it anyway.
Also which MIT Licensend software happened to this in our Linux eco system, that it became to a problem? Are there important examples?
Which also means Microsoft™ coreutils will always be "better" for general public. Yeah you are talking about open source, but this is more about Free Software ideology
Who says it will be better? It might also be worse. It might be bloated with functionality we don't care, it might get telemetry. If its proprietary, we can't trust it anymore. I don't think this would be "better" just because Microsoft did something add proprietary features to it. Even the general public don't think that Microsoft software is the best software.
Besides that, just because Microsoft does it better does not mean ours would get worse. It wouldn't affect Linux at all.
For the same reason Windows is more popular, the proprietary ones will be more popular. Then comes Embrace, Extend and Extinguish. They add things that are only in their version. Apps uses it forcing reimplementation in original(open) version or breaking compatibility with it( I think thats how Google+ or something made XMPP kinda obsolete )
We might be onto different goals here. I want majority of people adopt Free software, rather than just me personally living with it only(which create more problems for me).
The thing about permissive licensing is that ptoprietary softwares get whatever they need from open source and whatever they do with it is unavailiable back to open source which is one way free labour for them
Because it isn't a free software license. Software licensed by the MIT license can be copied and made into proprietary software. Since (I hope) we agree proprietary software should be minimised licensing under a free software license ensures big tech can't make there own corporate software from it without ever giving back.
It IS free software license. It just gives the freedom to turn it into proprietary too, in which case the new proprietary product is no longer licensed under MIT. Which in turn does not violate the MIT being free, as it became a different thing.
No. I'm talking about the free software foundations definition of free software. The mit license is an open source licence, not a free software license.
Anyway, I'm interested as to why you don't think the MIT license is worse than the GPL.
You linked the right definition but you are wrong. MIT is a Free Software license.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Expat
Open Source and Free Software are just two different philosophies -- the licenses are the same. A Free Software license also works as an Open Source license and vice versa.
Its not about being bad or worse or better, its being different that grants different rights. MIT is more permissive, which you may like or may not. Some people don't like GPL in example, because you cannot mix it with proprietary license. Or they want to keep a change secret, which is a right I would want to give. I'm not saying its better or worse, but I want to give the people the right to do what they want. This can lead to better or worse outcome.
Its only worse than GPL, if you want to enforce all modifications to be Open Source too.
I argue that using MIT will mostly result in a worse outcome than the GPL since our goal should always be having as much FOSS software as possible. Allowing people to make proprietry software from open source software results in less open source software.
No, it doesn't result in less open source. It results in more proprietary. You have the same amount of open source as before and didn't LOSE anything. The MIT License allows for stuff that wouldn't be possible otherwise and it is easier to understand and teach too. I argue that using MIT does not automatically or mostly result in worse outcomes than if they used GPL. Mostly it works fine.
That does not mean MIT is perfect. Like every license, it has its own strengths and weakness and should be considered like any other license. Also you can still go from MIT to GPL, in case you change your mind later and want to enforce GPL on any project based on it, but not other way round.
Not nessesarily think about comparing macos with aosp.
Since android used linux which is licensed under the GLP they had to make it open source and they contributed back to the open source community.
Macos on the other hand used a lot of software from freebsd and other bsd projects. Since freebsd isn't free software macos never contributed back to the community since they didn't have to.
Not using the GPL can result in less open source.
As said, its not less open source than before. Its just not more.
OK sure, but why should we give away an opportunity to get more open source software?
Because the license has other strengths as well. Also usually and in most cases its not even a problem. And in case of the Rust coreutils, its not like as if there was no alternative like the original coreutils. So having an alternative that can be used easier in other software where GPL is a bit problematic is not a bad thing.
And the MIT License isn't giving up on more Open Source too. So there is an opportunity.
What are it's strengths?
The GPL is only problematic when used alongside proprietary software, something we want to avoid. So far people have used the original coreutils for decades and it hasn't been a problem.
If the GNU+linux operating software shifts towards a permissive license (like MIT) it makes way for companies such as Red Hat and Canonical to start making proprietary operating systems. This would be a massive shame to Linux since the whole community benefits a lot from their contributions.
I described earlier exactly why the MIT license is giving up on open source software so allow me to repeat myself.
Think about comparing macos with aosp.
Since android used linux which is licensed under the GLP they had to make it open source and they contributed back to the open source community.
Macos on the other hand used a lot of software from freebsd and other bsd projects. Since freebsd isn’t free software macos never contributed back to the community since they didn’t have to.
Not using the GPL can result in less open source.
You just describe ONE way. MIT License isn't giving up Open Source, as all Open Source projects with MIT prove it. Also the world is not only about GPL, there are other licenses in effect that either cannot or don't want to change. In that case a program with MIT could be used and helpful for the project. In such a case its better to have a MIT licensed Open Source library instead a proprietary library, even if the whole thing is not GPL licensed (whatever it ends up being). Not all Open Source licenses are compatible with GPL, or even proprietary licenses. So having the coreutils as MIT licensed software alongside its original GNU GPL versions are not a bad thing. It's only a bad thing, if you want to enforce GPL code for any derivative works.
And not every project or maintainer cares if someone contributes back. In fact there are a few Open Source projects (even licensed in GPL) that does not operate on a community basis and do not accept code from others, other than a closed circle of chosen developers. Also MIT license is much easier to understand and grasp and does not require a lawyer to understand it (I read it multiple times and there are still bits I get confused or forget over time). It is also less risky for companies (or for any individual for that matter, who is not well versed in licensing and just want to license a simple program in example). Meaning if a company is afraid of using GPL and they make a mistake, everything needs to be Open Source or they could get sued. They could decide not to do partial Open Source. In that case a partial Open Source with MIT License is the better choice.
The current GNU coreutils have been C for decades, and I am not aware of an instance where this was a limiting factor. The GNU coreutils can still be bundled with proprietary software. Just like some Linux distributions used to come bundled with proprietary Nvidia drivers.
Can you possibly find an example where the Licensing the rust coreutils under the GPL would be an issue? Or actually any example at all of where using the GPL is a bad thing?
I literally just described an example of it giving up open source. Any project under the MIT (https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:Expat) license can become proprietary at any time and all development is no longer open source! How is my example of apple using FreeBSD without contributing not an example of giving up open source? If you would like I can find more examples. So far you havn't given me any for your own evidence but I would like some so I can understand your argument better.
Also applogies for the late replies, I hope you don't mind too much.
The majority of project are MIT licensed and it's not even close.