- cross-posted to:
- linux@lemmy.ml
- linux@programming.dev
- cross-posted to:
- linux@lemmy.ml
- linux@programming.dev
Is it GPL though? If this is a case of MIT-licensed stuff weaseling its way into Linux core utils, I’m not interested.
Looks like it’s dual licenced, MIT and Apache https://github.com/trifectatechfoundation/sudo-rs
Where is the problem when something mit-licensed is in core utils?
Edit: sudo isn’t even a core util.
Granted, sudo isn’t in coreutils, but it’s sufficiently standard that I’d argue that the licence is very relevant to the wider Linux community.
Anyway, I answered this at length the last time this subject came up here, but the TL;DR is that private companies (like Canonical, who owns Ubuntu) love the MIT license because it allows them to take the code and make proprietary versions of it without having to release the source code. Consider the implications of a
sudo
binary that’s Built For Ubuntu™ with closed-source proprietary hooks into Canonical’s cloud auth provider. It’s death by a thousand MIT-licensed cuts to our once Free operating system.Very useful concrete example of how these changes might be a problem. Thanks.
What’s the problem with it? These MIT programs already exists. Anyone can make proprietary version. Including in Ubuntu doesn’t change that.
Also your example is pointless. Canonical would rather make a proprietary pam module instead of a custom internal fork of sudo-rs.
I don’t know how often exploits that this would prevent are found, but sometimes