I swear the move to replace the GNU ecosystem with Rust tooling has more to do with a corporate EEE push to remove all libre licensing than with memory safety or anything else.
I swear the move to replace the GNU ecosystem with Rust tooling has more to do with a corporate EEE push to remove all libre licensing than with memory safety or anything else.
Which is very frustrating, because retiring C & C++ is long overdue IMO, but for reasons unknown to me, the Rust community is strongly against copyleft licensing.
I think the fact it’s statically linked plays a role. Common licences like the LGPL won’t work, leaving the MPL or the less similar but more commonly known MIT license
Thank you, Captain Obvious. The Rust community prefers that corporations have the freedom to embrace, extent, and extinguish open source contributions. Or maybe they don’t prefer it so much as they’re ignorant of it.
Wouldn’t surprise if Creative Commons had something to do with this. The copyleft licenses of it, of anything more restrictive basically than MIT and “attribution”, are listed as “restrictive” and “not open” or something. I think coupled with the complicated legal language versus “idk, whatever man” doesn’t help for lots of new projects.
That said… Most of the stuff I’ve done has been so “idk, man, I made a thing for me and figured others might benefit” that I just gave it the MIT license for that reason. And it may just be as simple as that reasoning.
Because of course it would.
I swear the move to replace the GNU ecosystem with Rust tooling has more to do with a corporate EEE push to remove all libre licensing than with memory safety or anything else.
Nailed it here, imo
Suddenly it makes sense
Which is very frustrating, because retiring C & C++ is long overdue IMO, but for reasons unknown to me, the Rust community is strongly against copyleft licensing.
I think the fact it’s statically linked plays a role. Common licences like the LGPL won’t work, leaving the MPL or the less similar but more commonly known MIT license
The rust community prefers freedom as in free to do whatever you want, copyleft has a different definition of freedom.
Thank you, Captain Obvious. The Rust community prefers that corporations have the freedom to embrace, extent, and extinguish open source contributions. Or maybe they don’t prefer it so much as they’re ignorant of it.
Wouldn’t surprise if Creative Commons had something to do with this. The copyleft licenses of it, of anything more restrictive basically than MIT and “attribution”, are listed as “restrictive” and “not open” or something. I think coupled with the complicated legal language versus “idk, whatever man” doesn’t help for lots of new projects.
That said… Most of the stuff I’ve done has been so “idk, man, I made a thing for me and figured others might benefit” that I just gave it the MIT license for that reason. And it may just be as simple as that reasoning.
Remember when under biden they passed this memory safety thingy? Which it implicitly, discreetly advocated for the use of rust nonetheless
Rust might be a psyop hahaha
Always has been