8 ms·

Yup, and one doesn't need to look further than FreeBSD to see what the end result is. I wonder, to what extent is the Linux Rust effort "generously subsidized"

by grg0 2y ago

Yup, and one doesn't need to look further than FreeBSD to see what the end result is. I wonder, to what extent is the Linux Rust effort "generously subsidized" by corporations? > He is thinking about ""what we are going to leave to the next generation"". Developers starting out don't want to use COBOL, Fortran, or C, he said. They want to work with fancy stuff like Rust, Swift, Go, or Kotlin. Oh, think about the children! The wolf in sheep's clothing.

jmclnx 2y ago
I did not see these posts before I posted similar. I fully believe this is a direction Corporations are pushing. Almost wonder when spyware will be added and restrictive DRM.
- surajrmal 2y ago
  This is FUD. The folks funding this generally believe in the benefits. Not everything is 4D chess. There are plenty of not more of examples of rewrites where licenses do not change.
  - bayindirh 2y ago
    If that's no 4D chess, and if the license is not that important, why not relicense uutils to GPLv3 then?
    - surajrmal 2y ago
      I don't mind GPL, but if I were to start a new project it would be MIT licensed. There is no hidden agenda in my decision to do that and it's certainly not some grand scheme by my employer to make me do that. I simply find gpl less free because it has obligations attached to it. I don't think I'm alone in feeling this way. In fact I think this may very well be the way the majority of folks feel at this point.
      - grg0 2y ago
        Corporations have been attacking the GPL for decades. Your employer would likely not allow you to license something with the GPL even if you wanted to. Many employer's employee handbook comes with specific clauses against not using, let alone contributing to, GPL software. So your take on the corporate part is rather disingenuous and ignores much of recent history. Yes, some people do believe liberal licenses are free-er. Corporations certainly like the freedom to not contribute back.
        mustache_kimono 2y ago
        > Corporations have been attacking the GPL for decades... So your take on the corporate part is rather disingenuous and ignores much of recent history. Corporations do not like the GPL on its merits, but it's also worth remembering that the GPL is also not that popular compared to MIT among developers. Developers have not been choosing the GPL for new projects. See: https://github.blog/open-source/open-source-license-usage-on-github-com/ https://github.blog/open-source/open-source-license-usage-on...
        conor- 2y ago
        Isn't it likely that newer projects licensing under GPL are also unlikely to be using GitHub and instead be using a platform like GitLab or Forgejo (or previously Gitea or something)?
        mustache_kimono 2y ago
        > Isn't it likely that newer projects licensing under GPL are also unlikely to be using GitHub and instead be using a platform like GitLab or Forgejo (or previously Gitea or something)? Why? But let's assume you're correct. What better metric do we have about which license OSS projects are using?
        grg0 2y ago
        Because the kind of people who use the GPL do not entirely appreciate Microsoft profiting from all code hosted on Github without respecting the original licence. And before you reply; yes, there is litigation ongoing on that front. And who cares about those ad-hoc metrics? GNU/Linux is the most successful free software project in the world and that is in part thanks to the GPL. That alone is a good metric. Blender and OBS are also heavy hitters. It is easy to take these things for granted, and anyone seeking to rewrite GPL software under a liberal licence (whether it is in Rust is irrelevant) would benefit from reading a little history.
woodruffw 2y ago
> I wonder, to what extent is the Linux Rust effort "generously subsidized" by corporations? I would hazard that extent is strictly less than Linux itself.
bendhoefs 2y ago
What does Rust have to do with it? You can write MIT or GPL licensed code in any language.
- bayindirh 2y ago
  It's not the language selection, but the license selection what bothers many.
Gud 2y ago
What’s the problem with FreeBSD? It’s been my daily driver for 20 years. That it has an open license is a good thing.
- grg0 2y ago
  That it's irrelevant outside of the server space and has terrible hardware support. FreeBSD folks themselves use Macs. Don't get me wrong, I very much like FreeBSD, but I believe a liberal licence on critical infrastructure like an OS is detrimental. Of course, FreeBSD folks will argue the opposite.

by grg0 2y ago

jmclnx 2y ago

I did not see these posts before I posted similar. I fully believe this is a direction Corporations are pushing. Almost wonder when spyware will be added and restrictive DRM.

surajrmal 2y ago
This is FUD. The folks funding this generally believe in the benefits. Not everything is 4D chess. There are plenty of not more of examples of rewrites where licenses do not change.
- bayindirh 2y ago
  If that's no 4D chess, and if the license is not that important, why not relicense uutils to GPLv3 then?
  - surajrmal 2y ago
    I don't mind GPL, but if I were to start a new project it would be MIT licensed. There is no hidden agenda in my decision to do that and it's certainly not some grand scheme by my employer to make me do that. I simply find gpl less free because it has obligations attached to it. I don't think I'm alone in feeling this way. In fact I think this may very well be the way the majority of folks feel at this point.
    - grg0 2y ago
      Corporations have been attacking the GPL for decades. Your employer would likely not allow you to license something with the GPL even if you wanted to. Many employer's employee handbook comes with specific clauses against not using, let alone contributing to, GPL software. So your take on the corporate part is rather disingenuous and ignores much of recent history. Yes, some people do believe liberal licenses are free-er. Corporations certainly like the freedom to not contribute back.
      - mustache_kimono 2y ago
        > Corporations have been attacking the GPL for decades... So your take on the corporate part is rather disingenuous and ignores much of recent history. Corporations do not like the GPL on its merits, but it's also worth remembering that the GPL is also not that popular compared to MIT among developers. Developers have not been choosing the GPL for new projects. See: https://github.blog/open-source/open-source-license-usage-on-github-com/ https://github.blog/open-source/open-source-license-usage-on...
        conor- 2y ago
        Isn't it likely that newer projects licensing under GPL are also unlikely to be using GitHub and instead be using a platform like GitLab or Forgejo (or previously Gitea or something)?
        mustache_kimono 2y ago
        > Isn't it likely that newer projects licensing under GPL are also unlikely to be using GitHub and instead be using a platform like GitLab or Forgejo (or previously Gitea or something)? Why? But let's assume you're correct. What better metric do we have about which license OSS projects are using?
        grg0 2y ago
        Because the kind of people who use the GPL do not entirely appreciate Microsoft profiting from all code hosted on Github without respecting the original licence. And before you reply; yes, there is litigation ongoing on that front. And who cares about those ad-hoc metrics? GNU/Linux is the most successful free software project in the world and that is in part thanks to the GPL. That alone is a good metric. Blender and OBS are also heavy hitters. It is easy to take these things for granted, and anyone seeking to rewrite GPL software under a liberal licence (whether it is in Rust is irrelevant) would benefit from reading a little history.

woodruffw 2y ago

> I wonder, to what extent is the Linux Rust effort "generously subsidized" by corporations? I would hazard that extent is strictly less than Linux itself.

bendhoefs 2y ago

What does Rust have to do with it? You can write MIT or GPL licensed code in any language.

bayindirh 2y ago
It's not the language selection, but the license selection what bothers many.

Gud 2y ago

What’s the problem with FreeBSD? It’s been my daily driver for 20 years. That it has an open license is a good thing.

grg0 2y ago
That it's irrelevant outside of the server space and has terrible hardware support. FreeBSD folks themselves use Macs. Don't get me wrong, I very much like FreeBSD, but I believe a liberal licence on critical infrastructure like an OS is detrimental. Of course, FreeBSD folks will argue the opposite.