GPLv3 software can’t be used on locked down hardware, you must provide a way to modify and replace the binaries. Maybe they want to sell Ubuntu for embedded/automotive use cases.
Could be a good reason. But I still don’t see whats bad about using MIT in this case.
In the worst case the would create a proprietary version of uutils and if people don’t like it they could still use other core utils or distros.
Some people act like they could add a paywall to the coreutils or something
But what is their advantage of using MIT instead of GNU?
I mean I know roughly the difference for the developer, but what does it bring canonical that it is now MIT?
GPLv3 software can’t be used on locked down hardware, you must provide a way to modify and replace the binaries. Maybe they want to sell Ubuntu for embedded/automotive use cases.
Could be a good reason. But I still don’t see whats bad about using MIT in this case. In the worst case the would create a proprietary version of uutils and if people don’t like it they could still use other core utils or distros.
Some people act like they could add a paywall to the coreutils or something
If companies wanted to make a closed source version of coreutils, for some reason, they could just take them from any one of the BSDs.
Even Apple, who took them from FreeBSD, doesn’t bother to do that.
Another reason why I don’t see the problem withMIT license. The ones that can and might get fucked are the devs, but they chose that license