franpoli

As far as I’m aware, contributions from major corporations to GNU Core Utilities specifically (e.g. sed, awk, ls) have been limited. Most development has historically come from the GNU community and individual contributors. For example, UTF-8 support was likely added through community efforts rather than corporate involvement. However, as these corporations increasingly back projects moving away from GNU and the GPL, their intent to leverage the permissive nature of the MIT license becomes evident. Should ‘uutils’ gain widespread adoption, it would inevitably lead to a significant shift in governance.

Yes, they do. The GPL’s copyleft clause requires companies to release the source code of any modifications they distribute, ensuring contributions back to the community. The MIT license, however, allows proprietary forks without this obligation. In other terms, the MIT license is effectively permitting companies to “jump out” of the open-source ecosystem they make use of.

While shifting to Rust might be a good idea for improving safety and performance, adopting the MIT license represents a fundamental change that will enable large tech companies to develop and distribute proprietary software based on the new MIT-licensed Core Utilities. This shift moves away from the original vision of the project which was to ensure that the software remains free and open as enshrined in the GPL’s copyleft principles. The permissive nature of the MIT license also will increase fragmentation, as it allows proprietary forks that diverge from the main project. This could weaken the community-driven development model and potentially lead to incompatible versions of the software.

Well, that doesn’t mean hope is high. Historically, France acquired nuclear weapons because it believes that only its own capabilities can guarantee its defense, rather than relying on the protection of another nuclear power. If France does not trust others to ensure its own security, why should its allies do that? In his speech yesterday, Macron emphasized that other European countries must develop their own defense capabilities. Furthermore, it is not a new concept that France’s nuclear arsenal also serves as a deterrent against attacks on its allies.

https://www.defense.gouv.fr/dgris/politique-defense/la-dissuasion-nucleaire-francaise

Which of France’s allies truly believes that, in the event of an imminent threat of conflict with a nuclear power, France would be willing to defend an ally? Given France’s history of double standards and frequent shifts in stance, such a commitment seems highly questionable.