oh well, it was good while it lasted
this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2026
79 points (97.6% liked)
Python
7874 readers
1 users here now
Welcome to the Python community on the programming.dev Lemmy instance!
π Events
Past
November 2023
- PyCon Ireland 2023, 11-12th
- PyData Tel Aviv 2023 14th
October 2023
- PyConES Canarias 2023, 6-8th
- DjangoCon US 2023, 16-20th (!django π¬)
July 2023
- PyDelhi Meetup, 2nd
- PyCon Israel, 4-5th
- DFW Pythoneers, 6th
- Django Girls Abraka, 6-7th
- SciPy 2023 10-16th, Austin
- IndyPy, 11th
- Leipzig Python User Group, 11th
- Austin Python, 12th
- EuroPython 2023, 17-23rd
- Austin Python: Evening of Coding, 18th
- PyHEP.dev 2023 - "Python in HEP" Developer's Workshop, 25th
August 2023
- PyLadies Dublin, 15th
- EuroSciPy 2023, 14-18th
September 2023
- PyData Amsterdam, 14-16th
- PyCon UK, 22nd - 25th
π Python project:
- Python
- Documentation
- News & Blog
- Python Planet blog aggregator
π Python Community:
- #python IRC for general questions
- #python-dev IRC for CPython developers
- PySlackers Slack channel
- Python Discord server
- Python Weekly newsletters
- Mailing lists
- Forum
β¨ Python Ecosystem:
π Fediverse
Communities
- #python on Mastodon
- c/django on programming.dev
- c/pythorhead on lemmy.dbzer0.com
Projects
- PythΓΆrhead: a Python library for interacting with Lemmy
- Plemmy: a Python package for accessing the Lemmy API
- pylemmy pylemmy enables simple access to Lemmy's API with Python
- mastodon.py, a Python wrapper for the Mastodon API
Feeds
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Not a fan of this news. At all.
oh no
OH YEAH!
The tools are open source. Someone needs to fork them before it's too late.
Good luck - uv is under a MIT license, so every fork is just a free buffet for openai to incorporate into their enshittified version of uv. There is a reason the GPL exists and many people will learn this the hard way ...
uv is under an MIT license, so every fork is free to relicense themselves as GPL and prevent openai's gobblies.
Do you have more on that?
I'm not sure you can relicense the MIT code under GPL if you are not the author or it doesn't say so in the MIT license, that relicensing is permitted.
The MIT is what's called a permissive license.
Copyright
Permission is hereby granted , free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense , and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
That's the entirety of the text. You can do pretty much anything as long as you make sure the first line is still visible somewhere (and if you're not incorporating/relicensing it into GPL, you have to include the MIT license text as well; I'm less sure about how this parenthetical works but I do know an MIT project relicensed to GPL needs not include the MIT text), which in GPL it is.
Thanks for the info.
So you can relicense MIT to GPL without the MiT parts staying MIT?
yes, you're creating a derivative work that is entirely GPL. note that this doesn't stop anyone from consulting the original since FOSS licenses do not have revocation. if they use none of the GPL derivative work they can still only abide by MIT. however, your changes would only exist in the GPL work, and they must be used with GPL.
Thanks for the clarification. I always thought that the GPL parts are also MIT then.
Your truust in the Law is admirable. OpenAI does not care at all about laws. They do what they want and have an army of lawyers to fight anyone who says differently. Just look at copyright laws.
This is why I am saying do it now. Better safe than sorry.
But, since all l am getting is abuse.... I'm out! Y'all have the say you deserve.
The world does not consist entirely of the US.
While I agree that openai can buy enough "law" in the US to do what it wants, the license is important in other jurisdictions and can be enforced.
alll I see is abuse? I see only one comment under yours (and its pretty reasonalbe from brummbaer) but maybe all the rest are folks I have blocked.
Not here....
the current versions will still be open source, you will always be able to fork them
But with slop in them
It's version controlled.
Theyβve already been using Claude for at least the last few months; youβll find a CLAUDE.md file and related settings in the uv repo if you look
Too late for what exactly? Describe in actual detail.
You said it yourself, it's open source so why are you running from it? The code is and will continue to be there in the open.
OpenAI can change the license at any time. Who's going to stop them?
It can also be forked at any time from the commit prior.
Nope, they can retroactively change it
Commit history literally exists, you can go back to the commit prior to changing the license and fork it. Do you understand git in the slightest?
This does suck, but there's time. I doubt the actual legal hand over has happened yet, and OpenAI is (likely, I don't actually know) an absolute mess, HR/structure-wise, internally. If the aquisitions I've been a part of in the past are any indication, there's a 1-2 year ramp before things really start to go to shit within Astral (assuming there isn't an immediate massive exodous of talent). Or I'm totally wrong!
Is there any example of such move that does not ends with enshittyfication?
Off the top of my head, no. I'm just pointing out that there's time to respond before things get shitty. This isn't Redis rug-pulling their license. The community can be considered. Thoughtful.
uv ---- fork ---> wx
(although zx is easier to type)
Oh look at the fancy qwerty user over here ...
but why would the vibe-coding future that Sam wants to shove up our arses need these tools?
Maybe it's more about access to Rust coders than the Astral existing toolchain.
Bit early for April fools :(
Fuck shit asshole what thr fuck motherfucker why??????? I was starting to like uv :'(
the day was OK before I read this. sooooqa.
I am sceptical, but hopeful. The Codex CLI is open source, so I'm somewhat hopeful it'll stay open source. My only worry is that they'll take too many people off the tools, stalling the development of uv, ruff and ty.
PS: Can we get a pytest alternative? It's so slow :(
I'm not a huge fan of AI companies buying up all the tool chains and trying to insert themselves as the only middleman to coding.
Which feels like what these moves are.
Im not suprised (still using using pip) π€£
Guess I'll need another python lsp server. Luckily, I use pacman to handle python packages
Have zero exposure to Astral. If they were bought out by OpenAI tomorrow, would not notice the difference.
If i were a Rust coder, would have interest. Since i'm not, would be at the mercy of the maintainers.
Saw uv and ruff as a liability. Now? What is uv and ruff. Never heard of it.
Look forward to future discussions on requirement files again. Reintroduce everyone to the -r and -c options. How to put requirements into a hierarchy. How to deal with multiple venv. And how to manage requirement files across multiple packages.