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.
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.