Fair enough, but in that case, them using a less optimal license is a problem that will solve itself because it won't be used, so it is not something that needs to be brought up by multiple people in every post on uutils.

If the goal is specifically to hurt the company, then an alternative is to use the free tier as much as possible in order to increase their costs.

First GNU coreutils is going to remain GPL-licensed, so nothing that already exists is being given away; the only thing that is happening is that some people have decided to write brand new code. (And it is worth noting that GPL only says that if you share the binaries, you have to share the source code; if your changes are only used internally, you do not have to contribute them back, though you probably want to do so since it makes your life easier down the road when you want to use newer version of upstream.)

Second, what scenario exactly is it that you are worried about? I want a specific and plausible answer, not just vague allusions.

Finally, if the Rust authors are fine with the possibility that someone will use their code in this way, then who are we to tell them to stop their development when we can continue to use GNU coreutils?

You did not answer my question, and I think it is an important one so I will repeat it: should they abandon the project if they are unwilling to use your preferred license?

Fair enough. I do actually get the concern, though I think that the threat is being exaggerated. However, I would argue that, if the goal is not to try and get these developers to abandon their efforts, then it does not make sense for every single discussion to get flooded with the same complaints about the license to the point that not much else seems to get talked about.

I agree that being concerned is reasonable. The reason for my fervor is that I find it unreasonable for every single discussion of uutils to be flooded with complaints about the license--that are often very toxic, e.g. reference to uutils using a "cuck license" as one commenter did above--to the point that there are few discussions of anything else.

It is telling that you cannot tell the difference between having a difference of opinion and ignorance.

I wasn't aware that coreutils was going somewhere.

Given that the Rust community seems to prefer more permissive licenses, I doubt that there many people who would be interested in contributing that be put off by this in practice.

Unless you are telling me that you personally had been really motivated to contribute to this project yourself, but changed your mind when your leaned about the license?

So, in your opinion, should these developers simply stop their work on this project of they are not willing to use the GPL?

Whose opinion do you actually think is going to be changed? All I see here is a lot of preaching to the choir here. If I were a uutils developer, I would stay far away from all of these discussions because of how much hate is directed towards it.

If they do not adopt the license you prefer, would it be better for them to just go ahead and abandon the whole effort? Are there efforts really so valueless simply because they chose the license that they did? Moreover, is dictating to volunteers what license they should be using for their code what you think this community should be about?

You claim that it is important that people make tons noise in every single post on uutils because it will prevent a bad scenario down the line, but could you detail what that scenario is? Because people like to make allusions to such a scenario constantly but refuse to get specific and then engage on a discussion on the specifics.

Incidentally, your choice of Redis is an example exactly illustrates my point that this license is not a gigantic deal it shows that the worst case scenario is... uutils being forked. Heck, it can even be forked at any time with a copyleft license precisely because its existing language is permissive.

That tends to be true of a lot of projects before they are finished.