this post was submitted on 06 May 2025
5 points (85.7% liked)

Linux

13334 readers
798 users here now

A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)

Also, check out:

Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Memory-Safe, Rust-Based and GPL-Free. πŸ˜‚

[–] Cris_Color@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

Is that good or bad? What license are they using instead?

Edit: looks like they're using MIT, but I can't say I really understand the implications of that change

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

It's generally not great as most non-GPL licenses allow for keeping changes from the public. GPL requires changes being made to GPL source to be released under GPL. Depending on the details some non-GPL licenses allow for creating closed source forks without releasing anything to the public. This is what allows Android OEMs to keep AOSP forks with changes that never see the light of day.

[–] Cris_Color@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

Thank you for the explainer I appreciate it :)

[–] thatonecoder@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 months ago

Basically, Expat-like licenses do not use the copyleft system: When you distribute a project that's copyleft licensed, you must give the exact same rights you were given (including the source code, license terms, etc). To resume this in 1 quote "the rights of one ends where the rights of the other begin"

[–] lemmtoem@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I don’t understand how can they change the license of GNU Coreutils from GPL to non-GPL by only changing the programming language. Can someone explain it better?

[–] Jumuta@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

because new shiny things are more secure than proven things

[–] kalipixel@reddthat.com 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Sudo had many vulnerabilities in past some of them unpached for years and it is bloated with unnecessary functionality that increases the attack surface. Doas is more secure and minimalist for example. Not an expert to say if Ubuntu approach is correct but I appreciate their effort.

[–] Jumuta@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

i don't think sudo is perfect either but doas already exists, surely they could use that??

[–] Neptr@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 11 months ago

Ubuntu is a corporate/popular distro. It wouldn't make much sense to move to do as when it lacks much of the functionality of sudo and isnt in a memory safe language, which is Ubuntu's goal with replacing user space software with Rust.

[–] FizzyOrange@programming.dev 0 points 11 months ago