4 ms·

To add to the list, here's my rust-noob implementation of the Kalman filter. https://github.com/rbagd/rust-linearkalman https://github.com/rbagd/rust-linearkal

by gerty 9y ago

To add to the list, here's my rust-noob implementation of the Kalman filter. https://github.com/rbagd/rust-linearkalman https://github.com/rbagd/rust-linearkalman

daniel_rh 9y ago
GPL3 means it's not very reusable in any projects that aren't GPL3. Have you considered a BSD or MIT license? or CC0 if you want to get code reuse? Or at the very least LGPL2
- cyphar 9y ago
  Maybe that's what they want. Personally I use GPLv3 for any project I can, because my priority is user freedom and not code reuse.
  - adrianN 9y ago
    Consider using AGPL for anything that might be run on a server somewhere.
  - legulere 9y ago
    Which of the four freedoms (ignoring that only freedom #0 and #2 apply to users) is violated by using more liberal licenses like MIT or CC0? Freedom #0 is clearly violated by GPL projects: GCC for years tried to be prevent to be run as a library or in combination with other programs. Running ZFS or the better proprietary graphics drivers on Linux is a bit questionable legally. GPL being incompatible with app store rules kind of breaks freedom #2 and #3.
    - cyphar 9y ago
      > Which of the four freedoms [...] is violated by using more liberal licenses [...]? None of them [which, as you probably know, goes without saying because they're both free software licenses]. The problem is that a project using a lax/pushover license is that the project can be used as a tool for violating user freedom. For examples of this, see the PlayStation and other such products which were developed thanks to the existence of free software under lax/pushover licenses. As an aside, the thing that personally made me care about the prolonged effects of copyleft is that I realised that if I wanted to contribute to a world without proprietary software, every non-copylefted program that I wrote was potentially acting against my intentions. You might not see it that way (and I didn't see it that way for a long time), but that's why I made my decision. > Freedom #0 is clearly violated by GPL projects: GCC for years tried to be prevent to be run as a library or in combination with other programs. That is simply not true, and is a non-sequitur to boot. It _is_ true that the GNU project decided to make it hard to create proprietary modules [or otherwise external modules] for GCC, but nothing stopped a user [in principle] from doing either of those things. The GPL doesn't require a project to make themselves usable as a library. > GPL being incompatible with app store rules kind of breaks freedom #2 and #3. But "app stores" are acting against user freedoms, which is why you can't distribute GPLv3 software [without additional permissions] in most "app stores". In fact, I would argue the GPL is doing its job well here. It's preventing the re-distribution of free software in a way that harms user freedoms. That's sort of the whole point. Just because you don't care about how "app stores" treat users doesn't justify claiming that copyleft is acting against users here...
- gerty 9y ago
  Thanks, that's a fair point. I do value user freedom and also come from the R language where GPL rules among packages. It's true though that Rust crate culture leans much more to MIT. I think GPL3/MIT as a dual license should be a decent compromise.
  - int_19h 9y ago
    What would be the point of dual licensing GPL3 and MIT? So far as I can tell, MIT is a strict subset of GPL3, and any GPL3 project can use it anyway.
    - Santosh83 9y ago
      Releasing it under MIT too would allow it to be used in closed source software projects. GPL does not allow that use case.
      - legulere 9y ago
        I think the point int_19h meant is that you don't need to additionally license software under GPL when you already license it under MIT
  - cyphar 9y ago
    > It's true though that Rust crate culture leans much more to MIT. This is a fairly worrying trend I've noticed in new languages. In general it seems that they are systematically creating ecosystems where copyleft is much less modularised than in other (older) languages. For example, in Go and Rust, LGPL is effectively as strong as GPL because it's non-trivial to make packages/crates replaceable for an end-user with a binary. This results in a general distaste towards LGPL even though it's objectively _the language's fault_ that LGPL isn't as friendly as it is in C. This causes everyone to license things as Apache or MIT (or _maybe_ MPLv2) and as a result the ecosystem of copylefted software is reduced.
    - burntsushi 9y ago
      > and as a result the ecosystem of copylefted software is reduced You might be worried, but I'm not. In fact, I'd say that it's a magnificent trend. The less copyleft software, the better.

by gerty 9y ago

To add to the list, here's my rust-noob implementation of the Kalman filter. https://github.com/rbagd/rust-linearkalman https://github.com/rbagd/rust-linearkalman

daniel_rh 9y ago

GPL3 means it's not very reusable in any projects that aren't GPL3. Have you considered a BSD or MIT license? or CC0 if you want to get code reuse? Or at the very least LGPL2

cyphar 9y ago
Maybe that's what they want. Personally I use GPLv3 for any project I can, because my priority is user freedom and not code reuse.
- adrianN 9y ago
  Consider using AGPL for anything that might be run on a server somewhere.
- legulere 9y ago
  Which of the four freedoms (ignoring that only freedom #0 and #2 apply to users) is violated by using more liberal licenses like MIT or CC0? Freedom #0 is clearly violated by GPL projects: GCC for years tried to be prevent to be run as a library or in combination with other programs. Running ZFS or the better proprietary graphics drivers on Linux is a bit questionable legally. GPL being incompatible with app store rules kind of breaks freedom #2 and #3.
  - cyphar 9y ago
    > Which of the four freedoms [...] is violated by using more liberal licenses [...]? None of them [which, as you probably know, goes without saying because they're both free software licenses]. The problem is that a project using a lax/pushover license is that the project can be used as a tool for violating user freedom. For examples of this, see the PlayStation and other such products which were developed thanks to the existence of free software under lax/pushover licenses. As an aside, the thing that personally made me care about the prolonged effects of copyleft is that I realised that if I wanted to contribute to a world without proprietary software, every non-copylefted program that I wrote was potentially acting against my intentions. You might not see it that way (and I didn't see it that way for a long time), but that's why I made my decision. > Freedom #0 is clearly violated by GPL projects: GCC for years tried to be prevent to be run as a library or in combination with other programs. That is simply not true, and is a non-sequitur to boot. It _is_ true that the GNU project decided to make it hard to create proprietary modules [or otherwise external modules] for GCC, but nothing stopped a user [in principle] from doing either of those things. The GPL doesn't require a project to make themselves usable as a library. > GPL being incompatible with app store rules kind of breaks freedom #2 and #3. But "app stores" are acting against user freedoms, which is why you can't distribute GPLv3 software [without additional permissions] in most "app stores". In fact, I would argue the GPL is doing its job well here. It's preventing the re-distribution of free software in a way that harms user freedoms. That's sort of the whole point. Just because you don't care about how "app stores" treat users doesn't justify claiming that copyleft is acting against users here...
gerty 9y ago
Thanks, that's a fair point. I do value user freedom and also come from the R language where GPL rules among packages. It's true though that Rust crate culture leans much more to MIT. I think GPL3/MIT as a dual license should be a decent compromise.
- int_19h 9y ago
  What would be the point of dual licensing GPL3 and MIT? So far as I can tell, MIT is a strict subset of GPL3, and any GPL3 project can use it anyway.
  - Santosh83 9y ago
    Releasing it under MIT too would allow it to be used in closed source software projects. GPL does not allow that use case.
    - legulere 9y ago
      I think the point int_19h meant is that you don't need to additionally license software under GPL when you already license it under MIT
- cyphar 9y ago
  > It's true though that Rust crate culture leans much more to MIT. This is a fairly worrying trend I've noticed in new languages. In general it seems that they are systematically creating ecosystems where copyleft is much less modularised than in other (older) languages. For example, in Go and Rust, LGPL is effectively as strong as GPL because it's non-trivial to make packages/crates replaceable for an end-user with a binary. This results in a general distaste towards LGPL even though it's objectively _the language's fault_ that LGPL isn't as friendly as it is in C. This causes everyone to license things as Apache or MIT (or _maybe_ MPLv2) and as a result the ecosystem of copylefted software is reduced.
  - burntsushi 9y ago
    > and as a result the ecosystem of copylefted software is reduced You might be worried, but I'm not. In fact, I'd say that it's a magnificent trend. The less copyleft software, the better.