• LeFantome@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    15 hours ago

    What could be the possible incentive to:

    1. move core utils to a closed license if you are a company

    2. for a Linux distro to choose that version over the already existing Open Source version

    Remember companies cannot take Open Source code bases closed. They can fork an Open Source project and close their fork. But all that means is that their “future” changes are not Open Source

    The original Open Source code still exists and we can all keep using it.

    For a real world example of companies not closing their userland, Apple still releases the source to their userland even though the BSD license does not require it.

    For a real world example of the community continuing on with the Open Source code and ignoring the closed fork, look at Valkey and Reddis.

    GNU is completely dominated by Red Hat. The alternatives, like uutils, are far LESS corporate.

    Fear and feelings over facts.

    • Ephera@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Listing examples where it works without enforcement is not an argument against enforcing it where it does not work without. There’s also no reason why uutils couldn’t be less corporate while also having a corporate-unfriendly license. And good luck leading this discussion with anyone, if you’re going to ad hominem right away.