Re: Concerning uniliateral decision making with respect to the coreutils package

Tiago Bortoletto Vaz <[email protected]> Thu, 9 Jul 2026 15:08:12 -0400
Newsgroups	gmane.linux.debian.devel.general
Message-ID	<woh2qxuovexod6g3shdot7w2paequiziwqkrgds6gxdosdizpe@nofjtp5x5m7i>
Hi,

On Thu, Jul 09, 2026 at 06:43:26PM +0300, Hakan Bayındır wrote:
> 
> 
> > On 9 Jul 2026, at 16:55, Antonio Terceiro <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, Jul 09, 2026 at 09:58:13AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jul 08, 2026 at 05:20:02PM -0700, Soren Stoutner wrote:
> >>> On Monday, July 6, 2026 2:04:44 PM Mountain Standard Time Marco d'Itri wrote:
> >>>> On Jul 06, Marco d'Itri <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>> Do you mind removing "Debian might follow the same path" from your site?
> >>>> 
> >>>> For the records, he refused.
> >>> 
> >>> As a fellow Debian Developer, I find that concerning.
> >> 
> >> Me too. Do we have any leverage against a DD who makes false claims about
> >> the project on their private web page?
> > 
> > I'm sorry but this is being blown out of proportion. Saying that
> > something might happen in the future is clearly someone's opinion (or
> > goal!) and needs no policing.
> > 
> > I have no particular sympathy for this "rewrite it in X" fad, but we
> > don't know, maybe at some point of the future, rust coreutils may be
> > better than GNU coreutils, or maybe not. That's clearly not the case
> > today, and if it is someday, a replacement will surely go though a long
> > and devastating discussion that will stress us all, before actually
> > happening. In the meantime, let people experiment.
> 
> I understand where you are coming from. I’m not completely disagreeing with you, and I’m all for experimenting as well; however, I see a trend of pushing things further and further. The behavior of not being aggressive on the surface, not saying anything strong, but doing the opposite, has great potential to divide people and apparently bothers some of us. It bothers me for sure.
> 
> Yes, Open/Free Software circles are not easy places to be, and the mode of discussion sometimes resembles a flaming mosh pit. On the other hand, I believe we can exercise a little more agency and show more respect for each other’s views.
> 
> Yes, writing forward-looking statements in a project page might not be technically wrong, and we should respect the choice. On the other hand, when people bring up their discomfort and highlight its dangers, those who do so command the same respect. Dismissing views and possible dangers is not the right thing to do here.
> 
> Let me put another forward-looking statement: Big Linux vendors might stop sharing source packages for their versions of uutils, and may even bake in DRM and/or “user-watching analytics” features into them to TiVoize their distributions, effectively making them non-free. This possibility bothers me. While I have nothing about the author(s) of uutils (I don’t know them to begin with), the possibility of this bothers me a lot. Do we want Debian to be one of these vendors, enabling this possibility? Where does it place Debian in relation to its motto, “The Universal Operating System”?
> 
> Am I (or others putting this possibility forward) blowing this out of proportion, too?
> 
> Even if we’re going to have this “devastating” discussion, we can address these questions in a kind and considerate manner. While I see no reason to light the mailing list ablaze (it’s summer and hot already), I see no reason to desert the subject completely either.
> 
> Kind regards,

I just wanted to say that I really resonate with the above. Thank you for
voicing your thoughts in such a kind and considerate way.

I don't see the whole situation as a big deal for now. However, I would have
expected a fellow DD to take a step back and make slight changes to the wording
on their project's website to avoid ambiguity and division. It didn't happen,
but Debian can live with that, I guess :\

Bests,

-- 
Tiago Bortoletto Vaz
https://tvaz.cc
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)