> The fact that you keep focusing on whether compilers are proprietary instead of whether Rust and Go are proprietary is starting to seem deliberately evasive.

> The fact that you keep focusing on whether compilers are proprietary instead of whether Rust and Go are proprietary is starting to seem deliberately evasive. "You keep using that word. It don't think you know what it means." -- Inigo Montoya This is just bizarre. If MIT/Apache-licensed Rust is proprietary, then anything could be? AFAIK there is no POSIX definition for epoll/io_uring. I suppose epoll is proprietary too? proprietary: "2: something that is used, produced, or marketed under exclusive legal right of the inventor or maker" Can Rust be forked, modified, used/sold and distributed with your changes? If yes that hardly seems like an exclusive legal right. Your problem seems to be that people trust the Rust project, and don't trust you or a central committee (yet). But that doesn't make a project proprietary. It makes it implementation defined, which has its own problems, but those are not the same problems of as those of proprietary software.