5 ms·

I’m not sure “hijack” is the right word. They are using money to entice projects to rewrite in memory safe languages.

by mfer 6y ago

lullibrulli3 6y ago
*to entice projects to rewrite other peoples projects
Miner49er 6y ago
Your missing what the two parent comments are driving at. Google says that's what it is doing, but this money is going to "an organization" that will seemingly get it's money from Google, giving Google control over whatever open source projects they target.
- emteycz 6y ago
  And? Google can't decide to fund organization that rewrites open source projects, or what? How is that different from forking the projects - apart from Google not taking anything at all?
  - beckman466 6y ago
    The over-arching pattern is that capitalist firms are happy to take from the commons, yet do little to sustain it.
    - emteycz 6y ago
      They're literally funding an organization that will take software to the next level and share it with the world, what more do you want?
      - bachmeier 6y ago
        A rewrite is not taking it "to the next level". It provides a new version in a new language that does the same things, and if things go according to plan, will have fewer safety issues. There's nothing that binds them to maintain any of these projects. Given Google's history, it's irresponsible to not consider long-term maintenance and other issues.
        emteycz 6y ago
        No, C and Rust definitely don't do the same things. If the project is open source, I don't see how any maintenance concerns are relevant - everybody can judge for themselves.
        gordian-mind 6y ago
        It's not that smart to mistake the purpose or specification of a program, with its implementation. Anyway, if everybody can judge for themselves, then I guess it's cool to judge that giving Google an inch over many critical open source projects is a horrible idea.
        emteycz 6y ago
        Sure, nobody says you have to use their software. But don't claim that they don't give back or that it's purposeless.
        cycloptic 6y ago
        You speak as if it's impossible for someone outside Google to maintain a project that isn't written in C++ or C...
    - tptacek 6y ago
      This is like the archetypical lowbrow dismissal, since the ED of ISRG is literally on this thread saying that their M.O. is to fund project maintainers directly to get this work done. These workers control the means of production.
- chii 6y ago
  > control over whatever open source projects they target. but if they rewrite the project in rust, why _shouldn't_ they control that project? If other people choose to switch, then it's not wrong for them to move, and not wrong for to google gain control of those users. The original project maintainers is a third party to this whole process, and i would argue, is uninvolved tbh. It is up to the users of the project to decide to trust google's rewrite (and their tendencies to abandon projects...), vs the original maintainer's version, balanced against the security aspect.
  - ardy42 6y ago
    >> control over whatever open source projects they target. > but if they rewrite the project in rust, why _shouldn't_ they control that project? If other people choose to switch, then it's not wrong for them to move, and not wrong for to google gain control of those users. I think the issue is the more critical projects Google controls, the more they can make decisions by fiat. Those decisions will favor Google's interests, and could sacrifice everyone else's interests in some way. It's sort of like web browsers. My understanding is that Chrome is so dominant that Google can basically dictate HTML standards at this point, or at least effectively push them in directions that are favorable to its ad-based business.
  - cnfhsg 6y ago
    If you translate an existing project into Rust, it is a derivative work and should retain the original license. If the rewritten project gets more successful than the original (perhaps due to corporate promotion), you have morally stolen the work of the original authors. If you write a project from scratch without looking, this of course does not apply. But I doubt that is how Rust rewrites actually happen, the temptation is too great.
    - TheReverend403 6y ago
      > If you translate an existing project into Rust, it is a derivative work and should retain the original license. By this logic, WINE is a derivative of Windows and should retain their license.
- tptacek 6y ago
  You're scare-quoting "an organization", which suggests you don't know what the ISRG is. You might look them up. They're pretty well-liked.
  - Miner49er 6y ago
    I was quoting OP.
flohofwoe 6y ago
If such changes had been planned in the project all along and the money injection can help speeding this process up that's fine. But I can't see Google security people getting involved being a good thing otherwise. They come across as prioritising security problems over anything else (e.g. "if all you have is a hammer...") and I'd be surprised if this sort of extremism will be healthy for a project in the long run. Memory safety is just one of many aspects to juggle in a software project.
pyb 6y ago
-
- machello13 6y ago
  Wouldn't feel great, but what in the article gave you the idea they're doing that?
- chii 6y ago
  Then be satisfied that your project is a good enough idea that someone else is willing to put up money to rewrite it using a safe language. But if you're not the one doing the rewrite, why would google pay you? And if you would be capable of such a rewrite, may be they would pay you to do so.
- sgift 6y ago
  Since they don't do that (it's right there in the announcement, which no one in this thread seems to have bothered to read) that whole point is moot: > The ISRG's approach of working directly with maintainers to support rewriting tools and libraries incrementally falls directly in line with our perspective here at Google. And a link to: https://www.abetterinternet.org/post/memory-safe-curl/ https://www.abetterinternet.org/post/memory-safe-curl/
piokoch 6y ago
Could be something great, but could end up with some "entity" will rewrite, say, ls or cp and suddenly it will turn out, that ls is still free and open source, but sends all user listed files to that entity (obviously for the sake of the noble purpose of making ls even better and all those stats are anonymous). And there will be some pro version that does not grab that stats, but you need to purchase subscription.
coldtea 6y ago
If they pay for the rewrite, they have control over it.

I’m not sure “hijack” is the right word. They are using money to entice projects to rewrite in memory safe languages.

by mfer 6y ago

I’m not sure “hijack” is the right word. They are using money to entice projects to rewrite in memory safe languages.

lullibrulli3 6y ago

*to entice projects to rewrite other peoples projects

Miner49er 6y ago

Your missing what the two parent comments are driving at. Google says that's what it is doing, but this money is going to "an organization" that will seemingly get it's money from Google, giving Google control over whatever open source projects they target.

emteycz 6y ago
And? Google can't decide to fund organization that rewrites open source projects, or what? How is that different from forking the projects - apart from Google not taking anything at all?
- beckman466 6y ago
  The over-arching pattern is that capitalist firms are happy to take from the commons, yet do little to sustain it.
  - emteycz 6y ago
    They're literally funding an organization that will take software to the next level and share it with the world, what more do you want?
    - bachmeier 6y ago
      A rewrite is not taking it "to the next level". It provides a new version in a new language that does the same things, and if things go according to plan, will have fewer safety issues. There's nothing that binds them to maintain any of these projects. Given Google's history, it's irresponsible to not consider long-term maintenance and other issues.
      - emteycz 6y ago
        No, C and Rust definitely don't do the same things. If the project is open source, I don't see how any maintenance concerns are relevant - everybody can judge for themselves.
        gordian-mind 6y ago
        It's not that smart to mistake the purpose or specification of a program, with its implementation. Anyway, if everybody can judge for themselves, then I guess it's cool to judge that giving Google an inch over many critical open source projects is a horrible idea.
        emteycz 6y ago
        Sure, nobody says you have to use their software. But don't claim that they don't give back or that it's purposeless.
        cycloptic 6y ago
        You speak as if it's impossible for someone outside Google to maintain a project that isn't written in C++ or C...
  - tptacek 6y ago
    This is like the archetypical lowbrow dismissal, since the ED of ISRG is literally on this thread saying that their M.O. is to fund project maintainers directly to get this work done. These workers control the means of production.
chii 6y ago
> control over whatever open source projects they target. but if they rewrite the project in rust, why _shouldn't_ they control that project? If other people choose to switch, then it's not wrong for them to move, and not wrong for to google gain control of those users. The original project maintainers is a third party to this whole process, and i would argue, is uninvolved tbh. It is up to the users of the project to decide to trust google's rewrite (and their tendencies to abandon projects...), vs the original maintainer's version, balanced against the security aspect.
- ardy42 6y ago
  >> control over whatever open source projects they target. > but if they rewrite the project in rust, why _shouldn't_ they control that project? If other people choose to switch, then it's not wrong for them to move, and not wrong for to google gain control of those users. I think the issue is the more critical projects Google controls, the more they can make decisions by fiat. Those decisions will favor Google's interests, and could sacrifice everyone else's interests in some way. It's sort of like web browsers. My understanding is that Chrome is so dominant that Google can basically dictate HTML standards at this point, or at least effectively push them in directions that are favorable to its ad-based business.
- cnfhsg 6y ago
  If you translate an existing project into Rust, it is a derivative work and should retain the original license. If the rewritten project gets more successful than the original (perhaps due to corporate promotion), you have morally stolen the work of the original authors. If you write a project from scratch without looking, this of course does not apply. But I doubt that is how Rust rewrites actually happen, the temptation is too great.
  - TheReverend403 6y ago
    > If you translate an existing project into Rust, it is a derivative work and should retain the original license. By this logic, WINE is a derivative of Windows and should retain their license.
tptacek 6y ago
You're scare-quoting "an organization", which suggests you don't know what the ISRG is. You might look them up. They're pretty well-liked.
- Miner49er 6y ago
  I was quoting OP.

flohofwoe 6y ago

If such changes had been planned in the project all along and the money injection can help speeding this process up that's fine. But I can't see Google security people getting involved being a good thing otherwise. They come across as prioritising security problems over anything else (e.g. "if all you have is a hammer...") and I'd be surprised if this sort of extremism will be healthy for a project in the long run. Memory safety is just one of many aspects to juggle in a software project.

pyb 6y ago

machello13 6y ago
Wouldn't feel great, but what in the article gave you the idea they're doing that?
chii 6y ago
Then be satisfied that your project is a good enough idea that someone else is willing to put up money to rewrite it using a safe language. But if you're not the one doing the rewrite, why would google pay you? And if you would be capable of such a rewrite, may be they would pay you to do so.
sgift 6y ago
Since they don't do that (it's right there in the announcement, which no one in this thread seems to have bothered to read) that whole point is moot: > The ISRG's approach of working directly with maintainers to support rewriting tools and libraries incrementally falls directly in line with our perspective here at Google. And a link to: https://www.abetterinternet.org/post/memory-safe-curl/ https://www.abetterinternet.org/post/memory-safe-curl/

piokoch 6y ago

Could be something great, but could end up with some "entity" will rewrite, say, ls or cp and suddenly it will turn out, that ls is still free and open source, but sends all user listed files to that entity (obviously for the sake of the noble purpose of making ls even better and all those stats are anonymous). And there will be some pro version that does not grab that stats, but you need to purchase subscription.

coldtea 6y ago

If they pay for the rewrite, they have control over it.