3 ms·

yeah it sucks that a lot of the rust ecosystem is pushing permissive licenses over copyleft

by beeflet 2y ago

facile3232 2y ago
[dead]
arccy 2y ago
copyleft is less free than permissive. noone should be compelled to share their work if they don't want to.
- lovich 2y ago
  But we collectively should be compelled to protect it under IP law? I’m personally completely fine(legally not morally) with people or organizations who want to keep trade secrets secret, but not if they also want society to protect anyone copying their work. The tradeoff is you show society how to accomplish your innovation and we’ll guarantee you profits for X years with the might of law Edit: this was in response to the comment about no one should be compelled to share their work. I don’t know enough about the nuances of copyleft vs permissive licenses to have useful commentary
- rakoo 2y ago
  Individual freedom doesn't exist in a vacuum, it is only effective if collective freedom is aimed and enforced. Having the freedom to live under a roof at the condition that you have enough money isn't something I'd consider actual freedom, and yet someone is free to restrict access to land and empty housing. That is plain stupid for a healthy society
- beeflet 2y ago
  the "freedom" being limited in this case is the freedom to privatize otherwise public work
  - arccy 2y ago
    privatise your additional work on top of the public work. the public work doesn't stop being public.
    - rini17 2y ago
      In theory. In practice it does stop being public because it is either sold or used as a leverage as a whole, public and private parts together.
okanat 2y ago
Rust libraries "have to" be permissive due to the way they are compiled. Rust's current compilation method requires everything to be compiled with the exact version of the compiler at the same exact setup due to lack of ABI compatibility guarantees. This means everything has to be compiled from source. LGPL doesn't work since it will force companies to release their entire source code. Without the ease for proprietary software development Rust wouldn't get as popular nor it would receive the same support from big tech. Without that popular support it wouldn't be as performant, nor it would attract the top system programmers it did. It is also extremely naive to think that copyleft licenses aren't actively violated. It is rampant and at this point violating them is the industry standard actually. Making software effectively "ownerless" by accepting many independent developers makes it also equally hard to defend its licenses. The socioeconomic system of the West prioritizes private ownership. Without a clear private owner (or a consortium acting on behalf), it is hard to defend GPL and the rights.
- beeflet 2y ago
  a permissive license is essentially the worst case scenario for a violated copyleft license

yeah it sucks that a lot of the rust ecosystem is pushing permissive licenses over copyleft

facile3232 2y ago

[dead]

arccy 2y ago

copyleft is less free than permissive. noone should be compelled to share their work if they don't want to.

lovich 2y ago
But we collectively should be compelled to protect it under IP law? I’m personally completely fine(legally not morally) with people or organizations who want to keep trade secrets secret, but not if they also want society to protect anyone copying their work. The tradeoff is you show society how to accomplish your innovation and we’ll guarantee you profits for X years with the might of law Edit: this was in response to the comment about no one should be compelled to share their work. I don’t know enough about the nuances of copyleft vs permissive licenses to have useful commentary
rakoo 2y ago
Individual freedom doesn't exist in a vacuum, it is only effective if collective freedom is aimed and enforced. Having the freedom to live under a roof at the condition that you have enough money isn't something I'd consider actual freedom, and yet someone is free to restrict access to land and empty housing. That is plain stupid for a healthy society
beeflet 2y ago
the "freedom" being limited in this case is the freedom to privatize otherwise public work
- arccy 2y ago
  privatise your additional work on top of the public work. the public work doesn't stop being public.
  - rini17 2y ago
    In theory. In practice it does stop being public because it is either sold or used as a leverage as a whole, public and private parts together.

okanat 2y ago

Rust libraries "have to" be permissive due to the way they are compiled. Rust's current compilation method requires everything to be compiled with the exact version of the compiler at the same exact setup due to lack of ABI compatibility guarantees. This means everything has to be compiled from source. LGPL doesn't work since it will force companies to release their entire source code. Without the ease for proprietary software development Rust wouldn't get as popular nor it would receive the same support from big tech. Without that popular support it wouldn't be as performant, nor it would attract the top system programmers it did. It is also extremely naive to think that copyleft licenses aren't actively violated. It is rampant and at this point violating them is the industry standard actually. Making software effectively "ownerless" by accepting many independent developers makes it also equally hard to defend its licenses. The socioeconomic system of the West prioritizes private ownership. Without a clear private owner (or a consortium acting on behalf), it is hard to defend GPL and the rights.

beeflet 2y ago
a permissive license is essentially the worst case scenario for a violated copyleft license