> Corporations have been attacking the GPL for decades... So your take on the corporate part is rather disingenuous and ignores much of recent history.
Corporations do not like the GPL on its merits, but it's also worth remembering that the GPL is also not that popular compared to MIT among developers. Developers have not been choosing the GPL for new projects.
Isn't it likely that newer projects licensing under GPL are also unlikely to be using GitHub and instead be using a platform like GitLab or Forgejo (or previously Gitea or something)?
> Isn't it likely that newer projects licensing under GPL are also unlikely to be using GitHub and instead be using a platform like GitLab or Forgejo (or previously Gitea or something)?
Why?
But let's assume you're correct. What better metric do we have about which license OSS projects are using?
Because the kind of people who use the GPL do not entirely appreciate Microsoft profiting from all code hosted on Github without respecting the original licence. And before you reply; yes, there is litigation ongoing on that front.
And who cares about those ad-hoc metrics? GNU/Linux is the most successful free software project in the world and that is in part thanks to the GPL. That alone is a good metric. Blender and OBS are also heavy hitters. It is easy to take these things for granted, and anyone seeking to rewrite GPL software under a liberal licence (whether it is in Rust is irrelevant) would benefit from reading a little history.
> GNU/Linux is the most successful free software project in the world and that is in part thanks to the GPL.
I don't disagree, but you're missing the point which is -- the reason why the GPL is not popular is not only because corporations disfavor it, it's because devs disfavor it too. You might ask yourself, "Why?"
> Blender and OBS are also heavy hitters.
And so is Firefox which is MPL2, etc. If your point is -- OSS can't be successful (or successful and copyleft) without the GPL, then you're obviously wrong.
> It is easy to take these things for granted, and anyone seeking to rewrite GPL software under a liberal licence (whether it is in Rust is irrelevant) would benefit from reading a little history.
Is this meant to be maximally patronizing? I am old enough and I was there. It is also fair to see the world differently than you do, and to appreciate different things (as others do and will do.) Some may say, "More than 25 years have passed since the Halloween documents and I am no longer on a jihad."
What I am saying is not that the GPL is not good, only that the GPL isn't the highest good, and more important than the GPL (or the MIT license for that matter) is my freedom to reimplement any software in whatever language and under whatever license I choose.
Your points are valid and the comparisons between liberal and copyleft licenses have been discussed a million times. But scroll up to the original context here: what's the advantage of rewriting large swathes of critical OS infra that already works fine?
> what's the advantage of rewriting large swathes of critical OS infra that already works fine?
If you don't get it, then, it's not for you.
The reality -- the project became a way for new Rust devs to get their first Github commit. It became popular. MIT/Apache 2 is the default for new Rust projects.
But I think you need to also consider the downside risk. Because I don't see one. uutils are valuable only because they exactly replicate the GNU version. You'll always have GNU!
Corporations do not like the GPL on its merits, but it's also worth remembering that the GPL is also not that popular compared to MIT among developers. Developers have not been choosing the GPL for new projects.
See: https://github.blog/open-source/open-source-license-usage-on...