What does Rust have to do with it? You can write MIT or GPL licensed code in any language.

It's not the language selection, but the license selection what bothers many.

> I wonder, to what extent is the Linux Rust effort "generously subsidized" by corporations?

I would hazard that extent is strictly less than Linux itself.

I did not see these posts before I posted similar. I fully believe this is a direction Corporations are pushing.

Almost wonder when spyware will be added and restrictive DRM.

This is FUD. The folks funding this generally believe in the benefits. Not everything is 4D chess. There are plenty of not more of examples of rewrites where licenses do not change.

If that's no 4D chess, and if the license is not that important, why not relicense uutils to GPLv3 then?

I don't mind GPL, but if I were to start a new project it would be MIT licensed. There is no hidden agenda in my decision to do that and it's certainly not some grand scheme by my employer to make me do that. I simply find gpl less free because it has obligations attached to it. I don't think I'm alone in feeling this way. In fact I think this may very well be the way the majority of folks feel at this point.

Corporations have been attacking the GPL for decades. Your employer would likely not allow you to license something with the GPL even if you wanted to. Many employer's employee handbook comes with specific clauses against not using, let alone contributing to, GPL software. So your take on the corporate part is rather disingenuous and ignores much of recent history.

Yes, some people do believe liberal licenses are free-er. Corporations certainly like the freedom to not contribute back.

> Corporations have been attacking the GPL for decades... So your take on the corporate part is rather disingenuous and ignores much of recent history.

Corporations do not like the GPL on its merits, but it's also worth remembering that the GPL is also not that popular compared to MIT among developers. Developers have not been choosing the GPL for new projects.

See: https://github.blog/open-source/open-source-license-usage-on...

Isn't it likely that newer projects licensing under GPL are also unlikely to be using GitHub and instead be using a platform like GitLab or Forgejo (or previously Gitea or something)?

> Isn't it likely that newer projects licensing under GPL are also unlikely to be using GitHub and instead be using a platform like GitLab or Forgejo (or previously Gitea or something)?

Why?

But let's assume you're correct. What better metric do we have about which license OSS projects are using?

Because the kind of people who use the GPL do not entirely appreciate Microsoft profiting from all code hosted on Github without respecting the original licence. And before you reply; yes, there is litigation ongoing on that front.

And who cares about those ad-hoc metrics? GNU/Linux is the most successful free software project in the world and that is in part thanks to the GPL. That alone is a good metric. Blender and OBS are also heavy hitters. It is easy to take these things for granted, and anyone seeking to rewrite GPL software under a liberal licence (whether it is in Rust is irrelevant) would benefit from reading a little history.

> GNU/Linux is the most successful free software project in the world and that is in part thanks to the GPL.

I don't disagree, but you're missing the point which is -- the reason why the GPL is not popular is not only because corporations disfavor it, it's because devs disfavor it too. You might ask yourself, "Why?"

> Blender and OBS are also heavy hitters.

And so is Firefox which is MPL2, etc. If your point is -- OSS can't be successful (or successful and copyleft) without the GPL, then you're obviously wrong.

> It is easy to take these things for granted, and anyone seeking to rewrite GPL software under a liberal licence (whether it is in Rust is irrelevant) would benefit from reading a little history.

Is this meant to be maximally patronizing? I am old enough and I was there. It is also fair to see the world differently than you do, and to appreciate different things (as others do and will do.) Some may say, "More than 25 years have passed since the Halloween documents and I am no longer on a jihad."

What I am saying is not that the GPL is not good, only that the GPL isn't the highest good, and more important than the GPL (or the MIT license for that matter) is my freedom to reimplement any software in whatever language and under whatever license I choose.

Your points are valid and the comparisons between liberal and copyleft licenses have been discussed a million times. But scroll up to the original context here: what's the advantage of rewriting large swathes of critical OS infra that already works fine?

> what's the advantage of rewriting large swathes of critical OS infra that already works fine?

If you don't get it, then, it's not for you.

The reality -- I think this is an instance of who knew uutils would be this popular. The project became a way for new Rust devs to get their first Github commit.

What’s the problem with FreeBSD?

It’s been my daily driver for 20 years. That it has an open license is a good thing.

That it's irrelevant outside of the server space and has terrible hardware support. FreeBSD folks themselves use Macs.

Don't get me wrong, I very much like FreeBSD, but I believe a liberal licence on critical infrastructure like an OS is detrimental. Of course, FreeBSD folks will argue the opposite.