Sylvestre Ledru who serves as the lead developer of the uutils project for the Rust Coreutils implementation presented at FOSDEM 2026 this weekend on this initiative. Ledru has spoken at FOSDEM in prior years on Rust Coreutils and this year’s talk focused primarily on Ubuntu 25.10’s adoption of it in place of GNU Coreutils.
Ledru’s presentation covered the progress made on Rust Coreutils in recent times and Ubuntu 25.10’s uptake of Rust Coreutils and continuing that for Ubuntu 26.04 LTS. While some bugs have been found as a result of it, they have been fixed rather quickly. Ledru’s presentation also points out some of the popular trolling around Rust Coreutils and ultimately how many of those commenters have been proven wrong
It allows uuitls, which is an important piece of closed source software, to be used in properitary software. and that is bad.
Isn’t it open source? Why is it being in proprietary software bad?
The theoretical concern is that some nefarious company will start making improvements and not contribute them back so that it can have access to (and possibly even sell) its own premium version that takes advantage of the hard work of the community without giving back.
Personally, I am a bit skeptical of this for a couple of reasons. First, I have a really hard time seeing any company care enough about uutils to do this. Second, continually merging changes from an upstream project is a real pain, so there is a strong incentive to make contributions back out of self-interest.
But even to the extent that there is some grounds to be concerned, it is not enough for so many people to contribute so much noise to every single one of these posts whining, as if it is attack on them personally.
If you expect that people will in reality treat the project as if it is copyleft. Why not support it being officially copyleft? Why just trust corporations to be good citizens when you could insist on it?
This. Licenses are so that trust is not needed and being a good FOSS citizen is expected. That means publishing your code if you fork, giving proper attibution and granting your users the same rights as the original project did.
Something very normal.
Agreed!
Okay, but if the developers of uutils do not care about these things, and they would be the ones most hurt because they would not get access to the changes that others are making… why should the rest of us make a big deal over it?
Because we are users, contributors, packagers, distributors… and if the project is unsustainable and suddenly becomes proprietary that is bad.
Or if the project is included in proprietary systems. Nobody will have the right to get source code then, or in case of GPLv3 even the right to install other software.
Copyleft and GPLv3 grant users the rights to prevent e-waste or replace shitty proprietary software on useful hardware with better one.
Copyleft licenses spread these rights, while permissive ones do nothing apart from handing out software for nothing in return.
So, in your opinion, should these developers simply stop their work on this project of they are not willing to use the GPL?
No, but as they do great work it is a shame that they dont protect it and thereby reduce the protection of every distro shipping them
Because it is not my decision as it is not my project, and I do not like to constantly be making big deal about other people’s decisions unless there is a significant chance of them having a significantly negative impact on my life, which I do not see in this case.
Then why are you in this thread at all?
You mean, why am I participating in the discussion of project that I enjoy following?
What freedom is being taken away from you, personally, exactly, that makes it so bad that they decided to go with this license?
It’s not a matter of “him” personally. Permissive license allow for a work to be taken and redistributed by other entities, without enforcing them to release their changes. This creates a one way relationship that is generally detrimental to the open source ecosystem, allowing work to be stolen away from the public. That being said, choosing a license is situational, and a permissive one can be a great choice in certain instances. For that particular case, I don’t see much benefit to having a permissive licence.
Okay, so it sounds like in practice this would primarily affect the uutils developers by denying them access to these changes. However, they are the ones who deliberately chose this license, so why make a big deal of it in every single uutils thread?
Not the commenter you’re asking, but I do consider the MIT licence a bad one for something like a core part of an OS. Not all FOSS licences are created equal, there’re even important differences between the different GPLs (GPL2 is more permissive than GPL3, for example. With AGPL you have to grant the freedoms to the users even if the software is running out of your server, which isn’t a thing with GPL2/3), and even the most permissive ones have a reason to exist, but I’m yet to hear (or read) a good one for these uutils, so I’m not touching any distro or project that uses these mit core utils with a ten foot pole.
What specific problem are you afraid would make your life worse as a result of uutils being MIT-licensed that is so bad that the entire operating system is verbatim to you? Especially given that coreutils will continue to be available to you?