Techrights — Sami Tikkanen Explains Rust Language and Its Goals
techrights.org

cross-posted from: https://programming.dev/post/35495679

Earlier post version: image/text.

From another article referenced there:

The maintainers of the Ubuntu Linux distribution are now rewriting GNU Coreutils in Rust. Instead of using the GPLv3 license, which is designed to make sure that the freedoms and rights of the user of the program are preserved and always respected over everything else, the new version is going to be released using the very permissible or “permissive” (non-reciprocal) MIT license, which allows creating proprietary closed-source forks of the program.

There will surely be small incompatibilities - either intentional or accidental - between the Rust rewrite of coreutils and the GNU/C version. If the Rust version becomes popular - and it probably will, if Ubuntu starts using it - the Rust people will start pushing their own versions of higher level programs that are only compatible with the Rust version of coreutils. They will most probably also spam commits to already existing programs making them incompatible with the GNU/C version of coreutils. That way either everyone will be forced into using the MIT-licensed Rust version of coreutils, or the Linux userland becomes even more broken than it already is because now we have again two incompatible sets of runtime functions that conflict with one another. Either way, both outcomes benefit the corporations that produce proprietary software.

(Source – which does contain some more-than-problematic language outside of these passages, compare the valid objections raised by others here and in the cross-posts.)

Compare also how leaders of Canonical/Ubuntu have ties to Microsoft, and how the Canonical employee who leads the push to rewrite coreutils as non-GPL-licensed Rust software has spent years working for the British Army, where he “Architected and built multiple high-end bespoke Electronic Surveillance capabilities”, by his own proud admission.

    • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de
      301·
      10 months ago

      Absolute trash article.

      like most things on techrights.org; every time I read almost anything on that website, I agree with a lot of the substance and then wonder why it has to make that substance look so bad by adding inaccuracies and/or conspiracy theories into it.

    • toman@lemmy.zipEnglish
      201·
      10 months ago

      Rust’s licensing is also problematic. The license has been worded in such a vague way that it may or may not allow forking or re-implementation. It may or may not require deleting all references to the word “rust” from a fork or re-implementation.

      All of that is fully compatible with FSF and OSI definitions. There is nothing new in requirement that forks use a different name.

      To add to this: Rust is dual-licensed under the MIT and Apache licenses, both of which are permissible and compatible with GPLv3. There’s nothing stopping anyone forking Rust and creating Stallman’s Rust licensed under GPLv3. I genuinely do not understand that paragraph.

    • loveknight@programming.devOP
      1512·
      10 months ago

      1. Your criticism omits the passages about usage of the MIT license over the GPL (the ones I quoted in the post). I haven’t quoted the other parts of the article because they are not as substantial, but their being opinionated and questionable in what they say about ‘Rust people’ does not mitigate the recklessness of those who strive to create MIT-licensed replacements for GNU coreutils.

      2. Discord on the website of the Rust project: That’s not a lie at all: it was the truth at the time of publication on March 19, and even as late as May (having been there for at least four years). So it appears that the Rust project has decided to drop Discord as an officially advertised channel. Good move. I would think that vocal criticism like the author’s played a role in this.

      3. Rust forum telling users to use Firefox, Chrome or Safari, and refusing to be accessible by other browsers (however circumventible this may have been): How was this not a sign of flagrant disregard for free software and for people’s right to use the web however the fuck they want to use it - or how they need to use it, in case of disabilities? (This antifeature doesn’t seem to be in place anymore, but compare point 2.)

        • FrostyPolicy@suppo.fi
          85·
          10 months ago
          Your criticism omits the passages about usage of the MIT license over the GPL (the ones I quoted in the post).

          I’ve addressed it:

            Why are you so sure that there will be incompatibilities? The stated goal of the project uutils is ‘to be a drop-in replacement for the GNU utils’ and ‘differences with GNU are treated as bugs’.

          You did not address it. Possible incompatibilities in code level is completely different thing then releasing them with a not copyleft license. MIT license allows that a closed sourced version can be created that could, in theory, be used to replace the MIT licensed versions in what ever distro uses them. Copyleft licenses, like the GNU GPL, don’t allow this. Recreating a well established and used core utilities, in whatever language, as a replacement to use, at first, in your distro and licensing them with a permissive license undermines the whole purpose of FOSS.

            • FrostyPolicy@suppo.fi
              42·
              10 months ago

              You are completely missing the point here. You replied to OPs comment about licensing with a comment about incompatibilities in code. My comment was about licensing.

              If anything, based on the article and your post all I noticed is ‘how disgusting people many GPL proponents are.’

              If wanting to keep FOSS as FOSS is disgusting to you why are you in this community in the first place?

              Edit: Not once did I mention whether or not I agree with the posted article or the OP.