This is a very valid reason, indeed.

A lot of things can go wrong. A company can take the free code, change it slightly to work only with a proprietary file type and then use their resources to promote their version and make their proprietary filetype and proprietary program the industry standard. Unfortunately this sounds too familiar. There are even cases that the filetype is an open standard but obfuscated to make it impossible for anyone (including the original FOSS) to open/save it.

I’m pretty sure that code written in any language can be licensed under the GPL. That’s why I cannot understand the backlash against Rush for the Kernel.

GPL enforces that all derivatives are FOSS and GPL as well. With permissive licenses, like MIT and Apache, a company is free to take the code, change/develop it further (or leave it as is) and make it closed-sourced without sharing anything with anyone. Regarding Rust, I am with you. Hence my question.

Can someone explain to me why Rust has been so controversial for the GNU/Linux kernel? One thing that I personally don’t like is that the equivalent Rust-made (equivalent) GNU tools are licensed under MIT (or Apache? - something permissive like that) instead of GPL. If they were under GPL, I’d be more than happy. But since the kernel is under GPL regardless of C or Rust, what is the reason for the backlash? Sounds like a very promising language indeed.

There was a time that Ubuntu was more polished than other distros but these times are gone. Canonical tried to capitalize their success by making their users “the product” at first and now have attempted to release a closed ecosystem of snaps based on proprietary backend software. They have signed their own death sentence more than once. Their way to redemption is to release the source code of the snap store under GPL and stop trying to replace GPLed tools with MIT or Apache licenses. Either you are committed to free software or not.

I am not sure how to answer that. Are you asking me to give you an example that the GNU coreutils were not used in a closed sourced s/w?

I think that people are negative towards rust utils, not because of rust or attachment to an old software but because they are not licensed under GPL or another copyleft license. Even if they become faster and more stable in the future, this is a flaw that will not be ignored.