76
Rust Coreutils 0.5 Released - Inching Toward Full GNU Compatibility (www.phoronix.com)
submitted 8 months ago by to c/linux@programming.dev
8 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Rust Coreutils 0.5 is now available as the latest milestone for this Rust-based alternative to GNU Coreutils. Rust Coreutils 0.5 continues moving closer to "full GNU compatibility" with nearly a 90% pass rate on the GNU test suite.

Rust Coreutils 0.5 is described in today's announcement as "a significant milestone featuring comprehensive platform improvements" There are an additional 22 tests passing now that brings Rust Coreutils 0.5 up to an 87.75% pass rate for the GNU test suite.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 18 points 8 months ago (2 children)

What I don't like with Rust coreutils is the MIT license instead of GPL.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago

    Yeah, the usual argument for not picking GPL with Rust is based on how it applies to static linking, which is how Rust works by default. But the coreutils are executables, not libraries.

    Even for the libraries I think it'd be nice with some stronger guarantees. Allegedly the EUPL is copyleft but allows static linking, so probably something to look into.

    Ah well. At least it's also possible for orgs like GNU to re-release forks of MIT stuff as GPL. The MIT licensing doesn't only work for the proprietary-preferring orgs.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Are you a (potential) contributor?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    I don’t think it matters.

    They are certainly a member of the community.

    Choosing MIT over GPL is a political decision that empowers corporations at the expense of the community.

    Yah companies can (and sometimes do) choose to give back to the community with MIT projects.

    GPL/AGPL/LGPL/MPL 2.0 ensure that they do give back when they take.

    I just don’t trust companies enough to use MIT.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -7 points 8 months ago

    They are certainly a member of the community.

    There is no "community". The GPL itself was explicitly created for the freedom(s) of the individual. The faux-"community" is just an attempt to create an "identity" in hopes of encouraging people to contribute, or at least advocate. And many projects don't even like being advocated for outside of potential contributor pools (a few hate any level of advocacy outright).

    Incidentally, liberally licensed software, on average, tend to value adoption at least as much as direct contribution, and thus would usually appreciate advocacy more.

    is a political decision

    Or a practical one, or ..

    Everything can be argued to have a political aspect to it. But what people (often non-contributors) have in mind ignores many relevant technical/practical aspects that may play a role.

    that empowers corporations

    Open-source license choice is practically near the bottom of an endless list of things that actually empower corporations. Most of the empowerment comes from the inherent nature of the system, which is something software licenses, GPL included, don't even pretend to try to fix.

    But that's not why I asked.

    Do you know how many liberally licensed essential packages are installed in your system right now, and can you name them? From my experience, most of the people who quibble about this don't and can't.

    * Not that it matters, but I personally use AGPL or MPLv2 for my own stuff.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent