Yes, just like most things Lunduke or his tinfoil hat army of illiterate conservatives preach, it’s horseshit. You can license your own code in whatever way you want, Rust doesn’t prevent that. Neither does Zig, just in case you weren’t aware that Rust isn’t the only MIT licensed language ecosystem. In fact, there are very few that use a copyleft license.
Do you know how much software in the Linux ecosystem is MIT (or Apache) licensed? Why hasn’t X11 “hollowed out free and open source”, despite being included in damn near every desktop linux installation? Have you ever taken a look at other language ecosystems? It’s absolutely full of MIT licensed libraries everywhere. There is a reason that MIT and Apache licenses are by far the most popular choice at the moment. If you really want to be concerned about that choice, be my guest, but stop blaming Rust for it for fucks sake. And you people can fuck off with those “soy” comments too. Come back when you’ve actually written a single line of productive code, instead of pretending to be a concerned expert about a topic you can barely grasp.
That companies take and not give back / close up their contributions. In the case of Khtml they had no legal ground, but now with rust recommending MIT/Apache 2.0 they do.
KHTML and WebKit is a historic mess but it’s debatable at best if Apple actually violated license terms. In any case, it shows just how ineffective LGPL is at enforcing the intended contributions from corporate licensees. I’m not getting into this historic mess of a topic with someone who has yet to give a reason why Rust needs to be singled out for being MIT licensed when it was already the de facto default choice for most open source projects before it ever became popular. It’s quite clear to me from the endless brain-dead comments in Lundukes YT channel or in the Phoronix forums, that a vocal minority of the Linux community has a massive hate-boner for Rust and is desperately trying to come up with a valid reason for it. None of these people are actual experts from what I can tell, but boy do they have strong opinions about the programming languages used by the people who do all the work.
Does it make the comment wrong? No. Rust is here to hollow out free and open source!
Yes, just like most things Lunduke or his tinfoil hat army of illiterate conservatives preach, it’s horseshit. You can license your own code in whatever way you want, Rust doesn’t prevent that. Neither does Zig, just in case you weren’t aware that Rust isn’t the only MIT licensed language ecosystem. In fact, there are very few that use a copyleft license.
Do you know how much software in the Linux ecosystem is MIT (or Apache) licensed? Why hasn’t X11 “hollowed out free and open source”, despite being included in damn near every desktop linux installation? Have you ever taken a look at other language ecosystems? It’s absolutely full of MIT licensed libraries everywhere. There is a reason that MIT and Apache licenses are by far the most popular choice at the moment. If you really want to be concerned about that choice, be my guest, but stop blaming Rust for it for fucks sake. And you people can fuck off with those “soy” comments too. Come back when you’ve actually written a single line of productive code, instead of pretending to be a concerned expert about a topic you can barely grasp.
Honestly I am naturally suspicious of rewrites under any permissive licence
Sure because Khtml will surely stay a unique case.
Really excited to see how this relates to Rust or MIT.
That companies take and not give back / close up their contributions. In the case of Khtml they had no legal ground, but now with rust recommending MIT/Apache 2.0 they do.
KHTML and WebKit is a historic mess but it’s debatable at best if Apple actually violated license terms. In any case, it shows just how ineffective LGPL is at enforcing the intended contributions from corporate licensees. I’m not getting into this historic mess of a topic with someone who has yet to give a reason why Rust needs to be singled out for being MIT licensed when it was already the de facto default choice for most open source projects before it ever became popular. It’s quite clear to me from the endless brain-dead comments in Lundukes YT channel or in the Phoronix forums, that a vocal minority of the Linux community has a massive hate-boner for Rust and is desperately trying to come up with a valid reason for it. None of these people are actual experts from what I can tell, but boy do they have strong opinions about the programming languages used by the people who do all the work.
There’s no requirement that a downstream fork needs to contribute their code back to upstream, they just need to release it, and they always did that.