2 ms·
> My understanding is that they used c2rust, and then told the LLM/Agents to make the code more idiomatic rust, while also using the PG test suite as a feedback
by malisper 2mo ago
> My understanding is that they used c2rust, and then told the LLM/Agents to make the code more idiomatic rust, while also using the PG test suite as a feedback mechanism.
This is correct
> and thus a fork, and should thus have the original license and copyright preserved)
This is not correct. The Postgres license is permissive. We need to include a copy of the license (which we do in the NOTICE file[0]) but we CAN relicense the Postgres code however we want as long as we meet the requirements of the license. pgrust is a derived work of Postgres, but Postgres allows derived works to be under a different license.
[0] https://github.com/malisper/pgrust/blob/main/NOTICE https://github.com/malisper/pgrust/blob/main/NOTICE
- nz 2mo agoThis feels very much like a distinction between letter of the law and spirit of the law. I knew a guy who once forked a very popular browser extension (you've definitely heard of it), that was copyleft-licensed. When I asked him where the repo is, he said it was not publicly available, but that the lawyers have assured him that he is not breaking any laws because the source code is available, via the inspect-extension feature of the browser. This answer has always felt problematic, to me. In part, I feel like these legally-correct strategies and tactics tend be corrosive. In fact, this is exactly the kind of thing that drives projects like Sentry and Mongo to dump open source, and use EULAs instead. Not only is pgrust a license-based fork (which always runs the risk of splitting the community) it is also a language-based fork (which also runs the risk of splitting the community). In fact, the only silver lining here, is that you went straight for the AGPL, instead of MIT (thus preventing a _second_ license based fork).