At first I was sceptical, but after a few thought, I came to the solution that, if uutils can do the same stuff, is/stays actively maintained and more secure/safe (like memory bugs), this is a good change.
What are your thoughts abouth this?
but they do exist and most of those would be solved with a memory and type safe language.
Maybe.
Still, there are other sources of bugs beyond memory management.
And i’d rather have GPL-ed potentially unsafe C code to… closed-source Rust code.
The Rust code isn’t closed source, but I’d strongly prefer a coreutils replacement to use GPL over MIT as well.
To add to @ParetoOptimalDev@lemmy.today
The uutils are MIT licensed, simply put it means “do whatever you want with it, as long as you credit us”.
The coreutils are GPL, simply put “do whatever you want with it but only in other GPL works, also credit us”.
The coreutils make sure forks will also be open source.
While the uutils aren’t closed source, they do allow you to make closed source forks.
The uutils’ license is too permissive.
