3 ms·

In all senses. They are both 100% proprietary. There is no sense in which either language is anything other than proprietary. It is literally illegal for me to

In all senses. They are both 100% proprietary. There is no sense in which either language is anything other than proprietary. It is literally illegal for me to start marketing The TorstenVL Rust Compiler. Because the language is proprietary.

ben0x539 1y ago
All of these have implementations available under free software licenses so they are clearly and objectively not proprietary. Trademarks are annoying but I can hardly imagine they're what anyone is worried about when picking a language in this context, they're not what's going to cause a language to disappear.
- torstenvl 1y ago
  That's completely nonsensical.
  - zahlman 1y ago
    No; that's what the word "proprietary" means as applied to software.
  - anonymars 1y ago
    Care to elaborate?
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
SpaceNugget 1y ago
A trademark on the word "Rust" has nothing to do with whether the language itself is proprietary. Clearly and Objectively. What you can call something and whether you can legally make the thing or have a permissive license to an existing implementation are two completely unrelated things. For example, you also can't make a C compiler and name it the "microsoft C compiler" due to your lack of trademark right. Does that mean C is also proprietary? See also: The most famous open source project is trademarked https://www.linuxfoundation.org/legal/trademark-usage https://www.linuxfoundation.org/legal/trademark-usage If you still aren't convinced, you are definitely using a different definition of the word proprietary than everyone else.
zahlman 1y ago
Wikipedia tells me: > Proprietary software is software that grants its creator, publisher, or other rightsholder or rightsholder partner a legal monopoly by modern copyright and intellectual property law to exclude the recipient from freely sharing the software or modifying it, and—in some cases, as is the case with some patent-encumbered and EULA-bound software—from making use of the software on their own, thereby restricting their freedoms.[1] > Proprietary software is a subset of non-free software, a term defined in contrast to free and open-source software; non-commercial licenses such as CC BY-NC are not deemed proprietary, but are non-free. Proprietary software may either be closed-source software or source-available software.[1][2] The Python development team, via the LICENSE file in the GitHub repository, tells me > All Python releases are Open Source (see https://opensource.org https://opensource.org for the Open Source Definition). Historically, most, but not all, Python releases have also been GPL-compatible; the table below summarizes the various releases. This license is also described on Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Python_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Python_License . Similarly, the reference Rust implementation (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust https://github.com/rust-lang/rust) is licensed under Apache 2.0 and MIT licenses. In what sense is FOSS software a kind of non-FOSS software?

ben0x539 1y ago

All of these have implementations available under free software licenses so they are clearly and objectively not proprietary. Trademarks are annoying but I can hardly imagine they're what anyone is worried about when picking a language in this context, they're not what's going to cause a language to disappear.

torstenvl 1y ago
That's completely nonsensical.
- zahlman 1y ago
  No; that's what the word "proprietary" means as applied to software.
- anonymars 1y ago
  Care to elaborate?

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

SpaceNugget 1y ago

A trademark on the word "Rust" has nothing to do with whether the language itself is proprietary. Clearly and Objectively. What you can call something and whether you can legally make the thing or have a permissive license to an existing implementation are two completely unrelated things. For example, you also can't make a C compiler and name it the "microsoft C compiler" due to your lack of trademark right. Does that mean C is also proprietary? See also: The most famous open source project is trademarked https://www.linuxfoundation.org/legal/trademark-usage https://www.linuxfoundation.org/legal/trademark-usage If you still aren't convinced, you are definitely using a different definition of the word proprietary than everyone else.

zahlman 1y ago

Wikipedia tells me: > Proprietary software is software that grants its creator, publisher, or other rightsholder or rightsholder partner a legal monopoly by modern copyright and intellectual property law to exclude the recipient from freely sharing the software or modifying it, and—in some cases, as is the case with some patent-encumbered and EULA-bound software—from making use of the software on their own, thereby restricting their freedoms.[1] > Proprietary software is a subset of non-free software, a term defined in contrast to free and open-source software; non-commercial licenses such as CC BY-NC are not deemed proprietary, but are non-free. Proprietary software may either be closed-source software or source-available software.[1][2] The Python development team, via the LICENSE file in the GitHub repository, tells me > All Python releases are Open Source (see https://opensource.org https://opensource.org for the Open Source Definition). Historically, most, but not all, Python releases have also been GPL-compatible; the table below summarizes the various releases. This license is also described on Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Python_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Python_License . Similarly, the reference Rust implementation (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust https://github.com/rust-lang/rust) is licensed under Apache 2.0 and MIT licenses. In what sense is FOSS software a kind of non-FOSS software?