[fastball]

I think that is not normal at all, and absolutely should not be normalized.

It is much worse for my package manager to install a totally different software, than for my package manager to install a new version of the software I asked for that now has a different license. Also as an aside, SSPL is not closed-source.

If the distro wants to do something, they can throw a warning up saying "this package is now licensed with the SSPL, would you still like to install? Try installing valkey for a BSD-licensed alternative". But installing software I didn't ask for is bad, actually.

[Alupis]

You're a bit late to the party. Its been normalized for almost as long as distros have existed.

No, you don't just randomly have a different package installed one day, at least on major distros. The next distro release will include the new package. If for any reason you care, you can always go install the other one you want instead as well, it just won't be part of the default package repos.

Generally, the replacement packages are 1:1 with the one they are replacing, and/or compatibility shims are included during the install. Its seamless. Also, generally the package manager does tell you what it's installing.

The major Linux distros are very careful about this stuff. The two largest have huge enterprise user bases, and it's never been a problem.

Many of the Linux distros are extremely opinionated on what goes into their default package repositories - it's a major reason why you choose certain distros. You are delegating all of this concern about packages, compatibility, bug/security fixes, and licenses and whatever to the maintainers of the distro. They are very careful not to break existing systems, and aren't going to surprise you one day with a major disruptive change. For them to replace Redis, for instance, with Valkey, it's going to be on the next major os release, it'll be a drop in replacement (all Redis commands continue to work, etc), and you'll have an opportunity to see this change while installing packages. This isn't "shoot from the hip" npm style stuff...

[lblume]

On Arch Linux, you are explicitly asked whether to replace a package with the (distro-)designated successor.

[rascul]

> Also as an aside, SSPL is not closed-source.

It's also not a free and open source software license. This is disqualifies software using it from being in the main repos for various distros.

Seems like some sort of user prompting could be acceptable, though.

[fc417fc802]

> But installing software I didn't ask for is bad, actually.

Except it's a fork, so it is what you asked for. The name changed, sure, and there's a different governance arrangement. But pretty much the entire point of using a distro is offloading decisions such as which developers and repositories to trust onto the maintainers.

If you want to make those decisions for yourself then you should obviously be cloning and building from source. I'm not just saying that - I myself do exactly that in cases where it matters to me.

If you don't care about license purity then perhaps don't use a distro that explicitly filters on that?