Rewriting essential Linux packages in Rust

Post by pabs3 » Mon, Mar 10, 2025, 4:32 AM UTC

bayindirh wrote: post #116

kazinator wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GPL does not prevent closed versions because of Tivoization, and SaaS. For instance, Facebook is closed, in spite of running on a mountain of GPLed stuff. A locked device may prevent the user from running a kernel image that is not signed with a certain private key, even though the vendor of the device complies with the GPL and provides the matching kernel sources and the correct toolchain to reproduce the build…

This is why we have AGPL and GPLv3. You can TiVoize the kernel, but you have to provide the user land, at minimum. In a MIT only world, you would have no source of anything. So not only you can’t build a signature-free version of the kernel for educational purposes, you can’t even have it. This is a corporation paradise.

Post by kazinator » Mon, Mar 10, 2025, 5:02 AM UTC

bayindirh wrote: post #122

kazinator wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, AGPL is a non-free license, which dictates how one may run the program when not redistributing any of its code. It's a clumsy attempt to attack a certain problem in the social computing sphere using software licensing. (You know the adage about every problem looking like a nail when the only tool you have is a hammer.) Open source licenses are characterized by the fact that you don't have to read them,…

Like it or not, AGPL is a free software license. It only says that even if you provide the service as a SaaS, you share the code if you change it . You may dislike that particular family of licenses, but it doesn’t allow you to give false information about it. Maybe it’s not intentional, so you need to refresh your understanding. We’re humans, and our brains are not tapes. Knowledge distorts. I experience the same. G…

Post by shmerl » Mon, Mar 10, 2025, 6:09 AM UTC

grandempire wrote: post #125

shmerl wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't specifically want to be compatible with it, no. I mean if ripgrep works for my needs - I'll use it and won't worry if it's POSIX compatible or not.

Great. But we don’t need it in base.

Post by panstromek » Mon, Mar 10, 2025, 10:34 AM UTC

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #65

brian-armstrong wrote: post #17

> " There are between 200 and 300 dependencies in the uutils project. He said that he understood there is always a supply-chain-attack risk, "but that's a risk we are willing to take". There is more and more tooling around to help mitigate the risk, he said. left-pad II, coming soon to a Linux distro near you

> There is more and more tooling around to help mitigate the risk, he said. Could anyone expand on this? I could imagine tools... better static analysis, maybe? being able to help. But I'd really want to see details. Both to see if it really helps, and because if there is tooling to help then I want to know so I can adopt it!

Post by alwayslikethis » Mon, Mar 10, 2025, 11:35 AM UTC

mustache_kimono wrote: post #124

alwayslikethis wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would have said this in the past, but at this point I don't think it matters that much anymore. 1. Code copyright has devalued a lot in general, as you can code significantly faster with LLMs and use them to launder GPL'd code into whatever you want. 2. Big tech seems to be getting away with most other forms of abuses these days, GPL wouldn't really stop them from doing anything important. To the extent that code i…

> 1. Code copyright has devalued a lot in general, as you can code significantly faster with LLMs and use them to launder GPL'd code into whatever you want. I see no real evidence this is the case. Can you provide examples? For instance -- do you see many Linux clones right now? Ask yourself: why might you not? Perhaps it's because it's almost impossible for an AI to rewrite Linux.