3 ms·

exactly; and i think Hellwig is on the wrong side of free software philosophy on this point. the fundamental philosophical core of free software is that the dow

exactly; and i think Hellwig is on the wrong side of free software philosophy on this point. the fundamental philosophical core of free software is that the downstream user must be empowered to use the software as they see fit.

amiga386 2y ago
Well, no, the issue is that R4L isn't downstream. It's right there alongside the kernel, a part of the kernel, it's one combined project. Someone can use your text parsing program to run a nuclear power plant, that's fine. The same person can't make you to accept the nuclear power plant control script as part of your repository, and support the "nuclear power plant controlling functionality" of your text parsing program.
- woodrowbarlow 2y ago
  Hellwig controls the DMA code. The Rust bindings use the DMA code. Hellwig is free to change the DMA code without considering whether or not it breaks the rust bindings. the rust bindings are not his problem, nor does he need to start maintaining any rust code. from Linus: > You are not forced to take any Rust code, or care about any Rust code in the DMA code. You can ignore it. [...] So when you change the C interfaces, the Rust people will have to deal with the fallout, and will have to fix the Rust bindings. sounds like it's structured as a downstream user to me.
  - subsistence234 2y ago
    > Hellwig is free to change the DMA code without considering whether or not it breaks the rust bindings. The fact that he was not allowed to do that is exactly why he escalated.
    - Ukv 2y ago
      He's allowed to reject Rust within DMA, which he maintains. What he wasn't allowed to do was veto code that was merely a user of DMA, on the basis of objecting to R4L in general ("I will do everything I can do to stop this"): > The fact is, the pull request you objected to DID NOT TOUCH THE DMA LAYER AT ALL. It was literally just another user of it, in a completely separate subdirectory, that didn't change the code you maintain in _any_ way, shape, or form.

amiga386 2y ago

Well, no, the issue is that R4L isn't downstream. It's right there alongside the kernel, a part of the kernel, it's one combined project. Someone can use your text parsing program to run a nuclear power plant, that's fine. The same person can't make you to accept the nuclear power plant control script as part of your repository, and support the "nuclear power plant controlling functionality" of your text parsing program.

woodrowbarlow 2y ago
Hellwig controls the DMA code. The Rust bindings use the DMA code. Hellwig is free to change the DMA code without considering whether or not it breaks the rust bindings. the rust bindings are not his problem, nor does he need to start maintaining any rust code. from Linus: > You are not forced to take any Rust code, or care about any Rust code in the DMA code. You can ignore it. [...] So when you change the C interfaces, the Rust people will have to deal with the fallout, and will have to fix the Rust bindings. sounds like it's structured as a downstream user to me.
- subsistence234 2y ago
  > Hellwig is free to change the DMA code without considering whether or not it breaks the rust bindings. The fact that he was not allowed to do that is exactly why he escalated.
  - Ukv 2y ago
    He's allowed to reject Rust within DMA, which he maintains. What he wasn't allowed to do was veto code that was merely a user of DMA, on the basis of objecting to R4L in general ("I will do everything I can do to stop this"): > The fact is, the pull request you objected to DID NOT TOUCH THE DMA LAYER AT ALL. It was literally just another user of it, in a completely separate subdirectory, that didn't change the code you maintain in _any_ way, shape, or form.