Open Source

30221 readers

347 users here now

All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!

Useful Links

Rules

Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

133

Ladybird Browser Team Selects Swift as Preferred Language (linuxiac.com)

submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

47 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I would have preferred Rust, a language created by Mozilla instead of one with ties to Apple, but I'm not a dev so I can't really judge. What are your thoughts?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 month ago (5 children)

Please read this and try again.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#packaging

Rules about how to package a modified version are acceptable, if they don't substantively limit your freedom to release modified versions, or your freedom to make and use modified versions privately. Thus, it is acceptable for the license to require that you change the name of the modified version, remove a logo, or identify your modifications as yours. As long as these requirements are not so burdensome that they effectively hamper you from releasing your changes, they are acceptable; you're already making other changes to the program, so you won't have trouble making a few more.

[+] [email protected] -7 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Please read this and try again.

Try again what? This is a debatable topic. I can simply refer to this line:

As long as these requirements are not so burdensome that they effectively hamper you from releasing your changes, they are acceptable;

And point out, that rebranding a whole programming language is not a piece of cake. So this is burdensome and hence is the issue for freedom.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Dude, if you're being obtuse on purpose because you have an ax to grind against Rust, try a different approach. You're not getting anywhere, clearly by the fact that no one agrees with you.

If you don't like that Rust has a restricted trademark, then call that out instead of trying to label the software and it's license as non-free. It's literally called out in my source that name restrictions ipso facto does not violate freedom 3.

But if you genuinely believe that the implementation of the Rust language and it's trademark is burdensome to create a fork, and you want people to believe you, then you gotta bring receipts. Remember, the benchmark that we both quoted is that it "effectively hampers you from releasing your changes". It being "not a piece of cake" doesn't cut it.

Hint: Google Rust forks since their existence also undermines your claim.

Good luck.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago

Remember, the benchmark that we both quoted is that it "effectively hampers you from releasing your changes". It being "not a piece of cake" doesn't cut it.

The easiest example is that you'll have to adapt all Rust-dependant applications to the Rust fork, 'cause it is a programming language.

But still, don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to say that Rust is a bad language or something. I'm just trying to point out on the problem, that was adressed to Rust Foundation before.

Good luck to you too.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)