4 ms·

edit: parent was heavily edited, so this comment makes less sense now. Note that calling this FOSS is completely inaccurate. Some parts are all rights reserved

edit: parent was heavily edited, so this comment makes less sense now. Note that calling this FOSS is completely inaccurate. Some parts are all rights reserved, some are public domain and some are only available for non-commercial use. Public domain is not open source, and especially not free (as in freedom). Restricting commercial use is also not free. At best, this project is partially source-available.

throawayonthe 2y ago
[dead]
patrick451 2y ago
The only thing more frustrating than a rustacaen redefining "safety" to suit their purpose is a Stallman discipline redefining freedom to mean something totally weird. Something in the public domain is not free? Give me a break.
- tonetegeatinst 2y ago
  Can I get some context for the rustacian safety thing? I'm honestly interested if that's real.
  - gpm 2y ago
    "Memory safety" is a concept that predates rust, but was certainly popularized by it. It refers to statically eliminating a category of bugs - those related to misusing memory - and all sources of undefined behavior. Rust code without unsafe blocks guarantees memory safety, and when you're writing unsafe blocks you're culturally expected to expose a safe-api that upholds rust's memory safety guarantees for users who don't themselves use unsafe blocks. Rust programmers (rustaceans, a pun on crustacean because the language mascot is a crustacean) tend to extol the virtues of memory safety [1], and are sometimes lax with using the word "safety" to refer to "memory safety". There are obviously non-memory-safety safety considerations as well (e.g. the other 1/3rds of security vulnerabilities. Or all the non-software uses of the word like making buildings that don't fall down). Personally I think it's usually pretty clear how the word is being used, and don't find it annoying. But then I'm a rust programmer. [1] E.g. pointing out that roughly 2/3rds of security vulnerabilities are caused by the lack of it.
- bramhaag 2y ago
  > Something in the public domain is not free? Copyright law is tricky. Under US law, "public domain" means "not copyrighted", the author waives all rights and the law allows them to release their works to the public domain. This you can consider free. In other jurisdictions, say The Netherlands, the "Auteurswet" does not have a way for you to release your source code into the public domain, making any such statement void. Other countries such as Germany do not allow the author to waive all rights ("Urheberrecht"), etc etc. Without knowing where the software was written, by whom the software was written and with whom it is shared, you cannot guarantee anything from "public domain" software.
fragmede 2y ago
> Public domain is not open source, and especially not free (as in freedom). The Free Software Foundation (FSF) and Open Source Initiative (OSI) recognize public domain software as "free software," but not as open source, but as I understand it, it's not that different from MIT licensed software. Someone can take MIT licensed code, make changes, sell the resulting binary as proprietary code and no one else is allowed to take that binary and sell it as theirs. There are some subtle other differences, but MIT licensing doesn't require other people's changes get contributed back out as open, same as public domain.
- bramhaag 2y ago
  The OSI does not recognize source code released to the public domain as free [1], because this "will depend where the software was written, where you are located, who the author is and where the people you are sharing the software with are located." [1] https://opensource.org/blog/public-domain-is-not-open-source https://opensource.org/blog/public-domain-is-not-open-source
dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
> Public domain is not open source, and especially not free (as in freedom) How so? There are no restrictions on use or distribution. > Restricting commercial use is also not free. I agree, and I would include neutering any commercial uses, in which case GPL is non-free.
- bramhaag 2y ago
  > How so? There are no restrictions on use or distribution. It's not open source because it does not use an open source license (public domain is not a license). It's not free because this depends on your and the author's jurisdiction (if you both live in the US, then yes there are no restrictions on use or distribution) > I would include neutering any commercial uses, in which case GPL is non-free. In what way does GPL neuter commercial uses? GPLv3 simply states that you have to make your code available to your users (note: users, not everyone), not that you cannot sell your product.
  - dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
    Jurisdictions always matter, other OS licenses are also subject to local laws and its not a given they will be valid or interpreted as intended. Arguably it's the intention of the creator of the software that matters in how licenses are actually enforced (or not). So in that sense PD is fine. There are also plenty of easy cures for PD, such as making changes and then copyrighting and licensing that derived work as required. The GPL forces you to license all your relevant software under restrictive terms (ie under the terms of the GPL). How people can declare that as 'free' I'll never understand, it's just ideological nonsense. The GPL makes it hard or impossible to make money from your software since anyone else can duplicate and sell it. That's obviously neutering commercial use.

throawayonthe 2y ago

[dead]

patrick451 2y ago

The only thing more frustrating than a rustacaen redefining "safety" to suit their purpose is a Stallman discipline redefining freedom to mean something totally weird. Something in the public domain is not free? Give me a break.

tonetegeatinst 2y ago
Can I get some context for the rustacian safety thing? I'm honestly interested if that's real.
- gpm 2y ago
  "Memory safety" is a concept that predates rust, but was certainly popularized by it. It refers to statically eliminating a category of bugs - those related to misusing memory - and all sources of undefined behavior. Rust code without unsafe blocks guarantees memory safety, and when you're writing unsafe blocks you're culturally expected to expose a safe-api that upholds rust's memory safety guarantees for users who don't themselves use unsafe blocks. Rust programmers (rustaceans, a pun on crustacean because the language mascot is a crustacean) tend to extol the virtues of memory safety [1], and are sometimes lax with using the word "safety" to refer to "memory safety". There are obviously non-memory-safety safety considerations as well (e.g. the other 1/3rds of security vulnerabilities. Or all the non-software uses of the word like making buildings that don't fall down). Personally I think it's usually pretty clear how the word is being used, and don't find it annoying. But then I'm a rust programmer. [1] E.g. pointing out that roughly 2/3rds of security vulnerabilities are caused by the lack of it.
bramhaag 2y ago
> Something in the public domain is not free? Copyright law is tricky. Under US law, "public domain" means "not copyrighted", the author waives all rights and the law allows them to release their works to the public domain. This you can consider free. In other jurisdictions, say The Netherlands, the "Auteurswet" does not have a way for you to release your source code into the public domain, making any such statement void. Other countries such as Germany do not allow the author to waive all rights ("Urheberrecht"), etc etc. Without knowing where the software was written, by whom the software was written and with whom it is shared, you cannot guarantee anything from "public domain" software.

fragmede 2y ago

> Public domain is not open source, and especially not free (as in freedom). The Free Software Foundation (FSF) and Open Source Initiative (OSI) recognize public domain software as "free software," but not as open source, but as I understand it, it's not that different from MIT licensed software. Someone can take MIT licensed code, make changes, sell the resulting binary as proprietary code and no one else is allowed to take that binary and sell it as theirs. There are some subtle other differences, but MIT licensing doesn't require other people's changes get contributed back out as open, same as public domain.

bramhaag 2y ago
The OSI does not recognize source code released to the public domain as free [1], because this "will depend where the software was written, where you are located, who the author is and where the people you are sharing the software with are located." [1] https://opensource.org/blog/public-domain-is-not-open-source https://opensource.org/blog/public-domain-is-not-open-source

dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago

> Public domain is not open source, and especially not free (as in freedom) How so? There are no restrictions on use or distribution. > Restricting commercial use is also not free. I agree, and I would include neutering any commercial uses, in which case GPL is non-free.

bramhaag 2y ago
> How so? There are no restrictions on use or distribution. It's not open source because it does not use an open source license (public domain is not a license). It's not free because this depends on your and the author's jurisdiction (if you both live in the US, then yes there are no restrictions on use or distribution) > I would include neutering any commercial uses, in which case GPL is non-free. In what way does GPL neuter commercial uses? GPLv3 simply states that you have to make your code available to your users (note: users, not everyone), not that you cannot sell your product.
- dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
  Jurisdictions always matter, other OS licenses are also subject to local laws and its not a given they will be valid or interpreted as intended. Arguably it's the intention of the creator of the software that matters in how licenses are actually enforced (or not). So in that sense PD is fine. There are also plenty of easy cures for PD, such as making changes and then copyrighting and licensing that derived work as required. The GPL forces you to license all your relevant software under restrictive terms (ie under the terms of the GPL). How people can declare that as 'free' I'll never understand, it's just ideological nonsense. The GPL makes it hard or impossible to make money from your software since anyone else can duplicate and sell it. That's obviously neutering commercial use.