This is “just” for changing the license of the coreutils so companies can use a compatible version and do not share the source of they get to modify them. In other words, it’s mostly for people who dislike GPL because of its virality.
More extreme people may see it as a major milestone in “killing” GPL.
It would definitely not be my motivation. I would not modify the gnu coreutils in many cases because they lack tests and are sometimes written in pre-ansi c.
At some point the GNU project focused their attention more on leading “gnu + Linux” debates and not so much on developing a stable and secure OS. So now it’s legacy cruft.
Then, why not license uutils in GNU/GPLv2+ (or v3+) again as a spiritual successor to GNU Coreutils, but use a "permissive" license like BSD to allow "free for all" incl. but not limited to closing the source?
What happens if the uutils team says that they're not releasing the source of the latest version but the $CURRENT-5 from now on, moving to a closed source, open baggage model? What prevents them from pulling an effective EEE?
> What happens if the uutils team says that they're not releasing the source of the latest version but the $CURRENT-5 from now on, moving to a closed source, open baggage model? What prevents them from pulling an effective EEE?
I don't follow this argument. This can happen under GPL as well. Nothing stops the copyright holder from relicensing future versions of the software under a different license. The existing versions already out there under GPL/LPGL/MIT/BSD, there's no take backs, but the copyright holder is free to do whatever they want with future versions.
What would happen in your hypothetical scenario is that everyone would get really really angry with the uutils team and the latest open source version would get forked by the community. The proprietary one would wither and die, because who in their right mind wants a proprietary set of coreutils?
Fundamentally, the choice between copyleft and permissive is simply if you care that someone takes your software and incorporates it into a proprietary package. Clearly, the uutils team doesn't care if eg. Apple makes a proprietary fork of uutils for OS X. And that's their prerogative.
Armin Ronacher once put it like this (quoting from memory), why should I choose GPL if I don’t plan on enforcing copyleft?
The GPL is an attempt at software freedom by restricting freedoms to have a lever that leads to greater overall freedoms.
In some way it has worked for the Linux kernel if you look at contributions wrt drivers. But I am not sure so much that it worked so well for other aspects
Because first, it's self enforcing since GPL is court tested, second it's also a stance.
I choose GPL, because I do not code these tools with my programmer hat. I code them on my free time, primarily for myself, to be used by people who appreciate the work went into them and find these tools beneficial.
These tools, while vary in sophistication, are high quality items which are built for their users, and not open to be monetized by another company just because they can build something with or on top of it.
I have no qualms with Open Source software when done honestly. Most of today's Open Source projects are not honest.
Try to deploy a service or compile an Open Source tool solely from the provided source code. 99.99% of the time you'll wish that you land flat on your face, which would be easier and less painful.
I choose GPL, because not only I promise that you'll be able to build the thing I released, I promise that I'll make it buildable with minimum fuss and effort as much as possible.
What I put out is complete opposite of a run of the mill Open Source Software. Free, easy to understand, easy to build, no moats whatsoever. It's a gift instead of a window dressing. It's a free offering with no strings attached instead of "fix our code, so you might get internet cookie points in return". It's crafted instead of produced.
No, the majority of companies shipping a product like coreutils don't care if it's GPL. They are extremely unlikely to modify it and meeting the licensing requirements with a source offer is not burdensome. The binaries aren't linked against so there isn't some viral nature.
GPLv3's biggest features are preventing source code from bricking by not running on the target hardware unless it's signed with a confidential private key, and automatically granting any patents which may encumber the source code.
So, companies doesn't like to share their source code in a usable form if they're not against GPLv2 but are against GPLv3.
Companies are being companies. It's not about the license, but allowing others to use their code on their products. So they're after smoke and mirrors, and when their mirrors are taken away, they have moved to mirrors that work.
Previous open source licenses focused on making sure that improvements to open source software were shared. There were created at a time when appliance and IoT like devices did not exist. Many companies have been very supportive of the model, joined open source groups, and even taken an upstream first approach to open source projects. Open source projects provide an enormous asset to companies, and it's often in their best interest to see those projects thrive.
But yes, companies are much less interested in people modifying software on devices they sell. It isn't smoke and mirrors, there are just different reasons that different individuals support open source software. And there's different licenses to suit different purposes.
There are already mostly compatible utils in FreeBSD*, as part of their own attempt to pivot from GPL to BSD following GPLv3 (I think it's understandable that an explicitly BSD-aligned project would seek to avoid GPL). So anyone who wants to avoid coreutils could already do it.
I don't expect a BSD to host GPLd software, but these projects are built with the spirit of open source, so they don't pull shenanigans.
The problem with permissive licenses started in my eyes with companies abusing the freedom they provide by creating *ium projects and started to push closed source applications with pseudo-open-source *ium projects. Also the same companies get these software fork it, add a small thanks with a 3pt font, printed to the space between the last page and back cover, and be done with it.
This is not illegal, but against the spirit of open source in general, and harmful on the long run.
As someone said: Open Source is about developer freedom, Open Source is about user freedom.
And developers are users of the software they don't develop, and they're cutting the branches they're sitting on.
It might be the motivation for companies like Apple to use it instead of the GNU utils, but they're still using the old GNU utils (if they still even bother putting it on Apple Silicon versions of macOS).
I may be wrong here, but my understanding is they don't use GNU utils, at least not any more. They use old FreeBSD utils, which is permissively licensed.
Note: Assuming that you're shipping a product which contains coreutils, regardless of it's modified or not.
First, you need to ship the source of that GPLd binary with the binary itself. Second, no derivative of that source code (and the binary as a result) can have a different license unless you're the copyright holder on that source code.
On the whole, I am firmly against Open Source and always go with Free Software, but this seems like incomplete knowledge.
edit: Added the "Note" section in the beginning. There was confusion it seems.
You absolutely do not need to ship the source code with the binary. The source offer is sufficient and the most common way of meeting the license obligation.
> The source offer is sufficient and the most common way of meeting the license obligation.
Yes, you're right. And you play e-mail ping-pong while trying to find the correct person in most cases. IIRC Linksys got into "warmer than usual" water because of not honoring the offer.
Sorry dude, but assuming that you ship a product using a precompiled GNU coreutils, you're operating under GPL.
The license states the following[0]:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
If you're using it under your organization, you don't need to ship anything, but if you're shipping something with it, then you must.
The same applies if you're hosting a SaaS with AGPL license.
Sorry, but I'm too old for this FUD thing. I neither have the motivation, nor the desire, nor the reason to do it.
He said if you use it within your org, not if you ship it. Hell, you can even modify coreutils to whatever the hell you want. So long as you aren't distributing the binary, you are under no obligation to provide source or a source offer.
More extreme people may see it as a major milestone in “killing” GPL.