Committing to Rust for kernel code

Posted Nov 24, 2023 19:55 UTC (Fri) by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
In reply to: Committing to Rust for kernel code by LtWorf
Parent article: Committing to Rust for kernel code

> Arguably also getting on a drakkar and raiding england is a way to make a living that current pesky laws have forbidden. Perhaps not all ways of making a living are equally good?

The difference is do you want to live in a commune, or a communist state. Both are supposedly "share and share alike". But a commune is from choice, communism is imposed.

From the *givers* point of view, MIT and GPL are pretty much the same thing - you chose to give it away. From the recipient's pov, MIT gives you that same choice, that same freedom. GPL forces you to give your stuff away, under threat of lawsuit ...

(Yes, I know, only if you choose to share what others gave you, but the GPL applies coercion, MIT gives you choice)

Cheers,
Wol

to post comments

Committing to Rust for kernel code

Posted Nov 25, 2023 7:32 UTC (Sat) by LtWorf (subscriber, #124958) [Link] (4 responses)

GPL is not imposed. If you use it it was because you have decided to somehow obtain the software, and you have no obligation of doing so.

You can write your own, pay someone else to do it, just not use that particular software. If you are ok with windows having an EULA, I don't see what your problem is with a much less restrictive GPL license.

> From the *givers* point of view, MIT and GPL are pretty much the same thing

From wrong axioms, a wrong proof follows. Unsurprisingly.

From the author's point of view, GPL means a much greater chance of getting improvements and contributions. See webkit, it exists because apple had to release it because KHTML was LGPL. Otherwise apple would have just never released their modifications. I do this assumption because the rest of safari was never open sourced.

So the givers of LGPL KHTML got webkit (wich wasn't that nice, because it was not a direct replacement), but it's more than with MIT.

If you are scared of the legal threat of the GPL and feel constrained by the clause that you must pass on the same freedoms, your intentions were never good to begin with; and as an author of free software I'm completely ok with ill intentioned people never using my software and interacting with me via bugreports.

(Of course in reality the ill intentioned people open bugreports to inform me of how dumb/evil I am for not letting them use my work to take freedom away from others… So I wrote a code of conduct that forbids this behaviour and I can at least instantly ban them).

> (Yes, I know, only if you choose to share what others gave you, but the GPL applies coercion, MIT gives you choice)

And seeing how the former CEO of github was pushing for MIT license (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bAAlPXB2-c), microsoft continuing on the same path, apple avoiding GPL3, google completely forbidding AGPL… it seems that humanity isn't enlightened enough yet to not need the coercion.

Committing to Rust for kernel code

Posted Nov 25, 2023 11:39 UTC (Sat) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (3 responses)

> > From the *givers* point of view, MIT and GPL are pretty much the same thing

> From wrong axioms, a wrong proof follows. Unsurprisingly.

Where's the difference? If it's GPL, commercially minded people won't use it, and you don't get anything back.

If it's MIT, commercially minded people don't contribute back. (According to you, at least ...)

The mindset that says "pay forward, pay back", will contribute regardless of licence.

As I say, what's the difference?

And if the GPL has no teeth (because, like in my case, it's simply an inappropriate licence), again what's the difference?

Cheers,
Wol

Committing to Rust for kernel code

Posted Nov 25, 2023 13:19 UTC (Sat) by LtWorf (subscriber, #124958) [Link] (2 responses)

> Where's the difference? If it's GPL, commercially minded people won't use it, and you don't get anything back.

Wrong premise again? Since Safari and Android do in fact exist, it's rather easy to show that you are incorrect.

I will stop this here because there can be no agreement if we can't even acknowledge real facts.

Committing to Rust for kernel code

Posted Nov 25, 2023 17:36 UTC (Sat) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (1 responses)

> > Where's the difference? If it's GPL, commercially minded people won't use it, and you don't get anything back.

> Wrong premise again? Since Safari and Android do in fact exist, it's rather easy to show that you are incorrect.

Yep, they exist. However, I can't speak for Safari/Apple because I have nothing to do with that ecosystem, but don't Apple refuse to have anything whatsoever to do with GPL3? And as for Android, doesn't Google have a ban on GPL user-space? Safari and Android look extremely like exceptions to me ...

> I will stop this here because there can be no agreement if we can't even acknowledge real facts.

To misquote PJ, when dealing with real life, facts are squishy. Heck, even with your two examples, the companies involved are openly hostile to the GPL - they don't have anything to do with it if they can help it .. (Unless, in Google's case, I suspect they're quite happy to dump abandoned projects as GPL ...)

Cheers,
Wol

Committing to Rust for kernel code

Posted Nov 29, 2023 12:30 UTC (Wed) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link]

> don't Apple refuse to have anything whatsoever to do with GPL3

Apple is not the whole world

In fact a *huge* number of companies (both on the producer and user side) have been using (AL)GPL for years and are starting to realise the “communist hell” FUD is just FUD. And they’re complaining Red Hat is not free enough.

The loudest free software promoters for years have not been @FSF but VC players that try to use dual licensing tricks and other open-source-enabled antifeatures to force their customers to do things they have no interest in.