Licence is MIT / Apache, of course.
EDIT: of course the relicensing is the problem here. Alas we’re in an all-time low interest in Free and Open Source politics, ideologies, and organization so the Big Evil Corpos continue to do their thing, one cog per time.
Okay, and?
I also wondered why this is a big news. Usually those tools are tried and tested over years of development and only run once a day or boot or even less. Don’t know if it has that much of an impact.
It’s cool and all, kudos to the devs, but idk why it’s posted here and an article is written about it.
deleted by creator
That license allows you to take the source, make changes and keep them to yourself. Which is not in the spirit of open source imho.
Permissive licenses also allow corporations to build off of open source software without giving anything back to public. I don’t see why they’re entitled to profit off the free labor of a community they don’t contribute back to.
While it does seem that way initially, strict copyleft licences can often do more harm than good. Projects need companies to use their software so that it becomes popular and get funding. There’s a reason why there’s barely any AGPL (or adjacent) licenced projects compared to GPL or MIT.
deleted by creator
We need more GNU projects
It’s news because despite there already being a number of issues caused by Ubuntu transitioning to poorly done Rust ports common utils, they continue the practise.
Haven’t those issues been found in pre-release software that’s months out from being pushed to the general public?
No, they’re in Ubuntu 26.04 LTS.
LTS! The stablest of the stable releases.
I hate the fact that 30+ years old tools are switched to tools that are barley tasted and bug prone(as it was shown ).
RReligion over substance.
You think this is “big” news? An Ubuntu focused blog reporting on what Ubuntu is doing is not exactly the big time.