Because the license has other strengths as well. Also usually and in most cases its not even a problem. And in case of the Rust coreutils, its not like as if there was no alternative like the original coreutils. So having an alternative that can be used easier in other software where GPL is a bit problematic is not a bad thing.
And the MIT License isn’t giving up on more Open Source too. So there is an opportunity.
So having an alternative that can be used easier in other software where GPL is a bit problematic is not a bad thing.
The GPL is only problematic when used alongside proprietary software, something we want to avoid. So far people have used the original coreutils for decades and it hasn’t been a problem.
If the GNU+linux operating software shifts towards a permissive license (like MIT) it makes way for companies such as Red Hat and Canonical to start making proprietary operating systems. This would be a massive shame to Linux since the whole community benefits a lot from their contributions.
And the MIT License isn’t giving up on more Open Source too. So there is an opportunity.
I described earlier exactly why the MIT license is giving up on open source software so allow me to repeat myself.
Think about comparing macos with aosp.
Since android used linux which is licensed under the GLP they had to make it open source and they contributed back to the open source community.
Macos on the other hand used a lot of software from freebsd and other bsd projects. Since freebsd isn’t free software macos never contributed back to the community since they didn’t have to.
You just describe ONE way. MIT License isn’t giving up Open Source, as all Open Source projects with MIT prove it. Also the world is not only about GPL, there are other licenses in effect that either cannot or don’t want to change. In that case a program with MIT could be used and helpful for the project. In such a case its better to have a MIT licensed Open Source library instead a proprietary library, even if the whole thing is not GPL licensed (whatever it ends up being). Not all Open Source licenses are compatible with GPL, or even proprietary licenses. So having the coreutils as MIT licensed software alongside its original GNU GPL versions are not a bad thing. It’s only a bad thing, if you want to enforce GPL code for any derivative works.
And not every project or maintainer cares if someone contributes back. In fact there are a few Open Source projects (even licensed in GPL) that does not operate on a community basis and do not accept code from others, other than a closed circle of chosen developers. Also MIT license is much easier to understand and grasp and does not require a lawyer to understand it (I read it multiple times and there are still bits I get confused or forget over time). It is also less risky for companies (or for any individual for that matter, who is not well versed in licensing and just want to license a simple program in example). Meaning if a company is afraid of using GPL and they make a mistake, everything needs to be Open Source or they could get sued. They could decide not to do partial Open Source. In that case a partial Open Source with MIT License is the better choice.
As said, its not less open source than before. Its just not more.
OK sure, but why should we give away an opportunity to get more open source software?
Because the license has other strengths as well. Also usually and in most cases its not even a problem. And in case of the Rust coreutils, its not like as if there was no alternative like the original coreutils. So having an alternative that can be used easier in other software where GPL is a bit problematic is not a bad thing.
And the MIT License isn’t giving up on more Open Source too. So there is an opportunity.
What are it’s strengths?
The GPL is only problematic when used alongside proprietary software, something we want to avoid. So far people have used the original coreutils for decades and it hasn’t been a problem.
If the GNU+linux operating software shifts towards a permissive license (like MIT) it makes way for companies such as Red Hat and Canonical to start making proprietary operating systems. This would be a massive shame to Linux since the whole community benefits a lot from their contributions.
I described earlier exactly why the MIT license is giving up on open source software so allow me to repeat myself.
Think about comparing macos with aosp.
Since android used linux which is licensed under the GLP they had to make it open source and they contributed back to the open source community.
Macos on the other hand used a lot of software from freebsd and other bsd projects. Since freebsd isn’t free software macos never contributed back to the community since they didn’t have to.
Not using the GPL can result in less open source.
You just describe ONE way. MIT License isn’t giving up Open Source, as all Open Source projects with MIT prove it. Also the world is not only about GPL, there are other licenses in effect that either cannot or don’t want to change. In that case a program with MIT could be used and helpful for the project. In such a case its better to have a MIT licensed Open Source library instead a proprietary library, even if the whole thing is not GPL licensed (whatever it ends up being). Not all Open Source licenses are compatible with GPL, or even proprietary licenses. So having the coreutils as MIT licensed software alongside its original GNU GPL versions are not a bad thing. It’s only a bad thing, if you want to enforce GPL code for any derivative works.
And not every project or maintainer cares if someone contributes back. In fact there are a few Open Source projects (even licensed in GPL) that does not operate on a community basis and do not accept code from others, other than a closed circle of chosen developers. Also MIT license is much easier to understand and grasp and does not require a lawyer to understand it (I read it multiple times and there are still bits I get confused or forget over time). It is also less risky for companies (or for any individual for that matter, who is not well versed in licensing and just want to license a simple program in example). Meaning if a company is afraid of using GPL and they make a mistake, everything needs to be Open Source or they could get sued. They could decide not to do partial Open Source. In that case a partial Open Source with MIT License is the better choice.