3 ms·
I use NixOS so it's feasible for me to use these as true drop-in replacements when they're done. And the reason I'd want to do that is for hardening, as the sib
by YoshiRulz 3y ago
I use NixOS so it's feasible for me to use these as true drop-in replacements when they're done. And the reason I'd want to do that is for hardening, as the sibling commenter suggests.
The fact it's released under MIT instead of Apache (or GPL) does worry me though.
- Snow_Falls 3y agoYeah, I'm not a fan of the rust ecosystem trying to move everything from FSF-style free/libre licenses to permissive licenses.
- m4rtink 3y agoYeah - memory safety, why not (though its not a silver bullet) but why change te license to one that can be quite dangerous over time for something this important?
- silon42 3y agoSomeone could release it with a relicense to GPL (and maybe LGPL if dynamically linked).
- dartos 3y agoYou can’t just release someone else’s BSD code under GPL.
- Zambyte 3y agoSure you can. As long as you follow the terms of the MIT license. That effectively nullifies the value of slapping the GPL on it, but you can do it.
- dartos 3y agoWhy even comment this? It adds nothing but confusion to the conversation.
- Zambyte 3y agoBecause the ability to sublicense is the whole point of permissive copyright licenses. The point of confusion is saying that you can't sublicense, when you very explicitly can. The reason why it would be useful to sublicense it as GPL would be to intermix it with changes that are GPL. The combined work would be covered by the terms of the GPL, and the original work would remain covered by the MIT license.
- dartos 3y ago> Because the ability to sublicense is the whole point of permissive copyright licenses. What makes you think this? The point of licenses like GPL (copyleft licenses) is to prevent sublicensing. GPL sets very specific rules and you need to follow them. You can’t just ignore them and change the code’s license. MIT isn’t copyleft in that sense (as you don’t _have_ to release changes you make to MIT code) but any code released based on MIT code must also include the MIT license. You can’t just change the license all willy nilly, that would defeat the purpose.
- Zambyte 3y ago> What makes you think this? The body of the license, particularly in contrast to the copyright granted automatically, and other copyright licenses. The MIT and BSD licenses are not very long and quite easy to digest. I recommend giving them a read. > The point of licenses like GPL (copyleft licenses) is to prevent sublicensing. The juxtaposition with the previous question makes me think you may have missed that your question was in reply to permissive licenses, or maybe you think that the GPL is a permissive license? Either way: I agree. The GPL does prevent (further) sublicensing. > [...] but any code released based on MIT code must also include the MIT license. Yes. That's why I said: > That effectively nullifies the value of slapping the GPL on it, but you can do it. In my previous comment. Because when you simply slap the GPL on some MIT code and release it like that, people can choose to use the MIT licensed code with the MIT license instead. Effectively nullifying the value of the GPL. > You can’t just change the license all willy nilly, that would defeat the purpose. Never meant to suggest you could.
- fanf2 3y agoA fair number of the gnu utilities were originally written as part of the 4.3BSD Net/2 effort to get rid of AT&T code. When the gnu project adopted the code it got relicensed from BSD to GPL.
- Zambyte 3y agoRelicensed or sublicensed? Anything can be relicensed (by the copyright holder), because that is outside the terms of a license. Neither the terms of the BSD license nor GPL are relevant for that.