Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Moss: a Rust Linux-compatible kernel in 26,000 lines of code

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 163 posts

Re: Moss: a Rust Linux-compatible kernel in 26,000 lines of code

#151

Post by nickpsecurity »

phkahler wrote: post #146
nickpsecurity wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MIT licensed code is a gift. A gift indeed doesn't require the recipient to give back anything related to the gift. A "gift" requiring GPL-like conditions isn't really a gift in the common sense. It's more like a contractual agreement with something provided and specific, non-negotiable obligations. They're giving while also asserting control over others' lives, hoping for a specific outcome. That's not just a gift.…

Thay "holier than thou" attitude from BSD/MIT proponents seems like some kind of ego talking. Freedom to deny others the freedom you had is not noble. GPL is a gift that keeps giving.

Using the legal system to force other people to do what you want and perpetually isn't freedom: it's controlling others by force to make them live the way you want them to. You're taking away their personal freedoms, like sharing or not sharing their work, to promote or force compliance with a goal of yours. Again, that's control, not freedom.

Would you want people controling your property based on their current and future desires? And dictating what you do with your property enhancements? Would you call that giving you more freedom? Or denying you freedom to force you to support their goals for your property?

Re: Moss: a Rust Linux-compatible kernel in 26,000 lines of code

#152

Post by SAI_Peregrinus »

tingletech wrote: post #127
SAI_Peregrinus wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Permissive license + complaining when companies don't contribute back from their forks.

Do rust projects have a reputation for complaining about corporate forks not contributing back code?

Not in particular, but it's pretty common for permissively licensed projects to complain about companies complying with their license instead of what they imagine the license to be, then relicensing to a proprietary or copyleft license (e.g. Elasticsearch for a high-profile case but there are many others). This lead to some people disliking permissive licenses.

Personally I dislike them because they don't preserve end-user freedom, I prefer the MPL. But if someone wants to donate their work to for-profit companies that's their choice.

Re: Moss: a Rust Linux-compatible kernel in 26,000 lines of code

#153

Post by SAI_Peregrinus »

cryptonector wrote: post #104
SAI_Peregrinus wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Permissive license + complaining when companies don't contribute back from their forks.

I've worked on plenty of BSD and MIT licensed code. I've never complained about lack of contribution. You're projecting. Please stop.

I'm not the person who used the term "pushover license". I just explained why some people use the term.

Re: Moss: a Rust Linux-compatible kernel in 26,000 lines of code

#154

Post by fragmede »

nickpsecurity wrote: post #151
phkahler wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thay "holier than thou" attitude from BSD/MIT proponents seems like some kind of ego talking. Freedom to deny others the freedom you had is not noble. GPL is a gift that keeps giving.

Using the legal system to force other people to do what you want and perpetually isn't freedom: it's controlling others by force to make them live the way you want them to. You're taking away their personal freedoms, like sharing or not sharing their work, to promote or force compliance with a goal of yours. Again, that's control, not freedom. Would you want people controling your property based on their current and…

It's stupid to discuss this in the abstract because what you want to do with your property is very relevant. If you want to paint your fence a weird color and that's what's being prohibited by law is different is totally different from if you want to build a heavy polluting chemical processing factory or a poorly run slaughter house with animals squealing at all hours of the day.

Re: Moss: a Rust Linux-compatible kernel in 26,000 lines of code

#155

Post by vermaden »

leo_e wrote: post #65

The choice of MIT for a kernel feels like setting up the project to be cannibalized rather than contributed to. We've seen this movie before with the BSDs. Hardware vendors love permissive licenses because they can fork, add their proprietary HAL/drivers, and ship a closed binary blob without ever upstreaming a single fix. Linux won specifically because the GPL forced the "greedy" actors to collaborate. In the embedd…

How the 'GPL' part worked out to force VMware to send back the things they modified?

Re: Moss: a Rust Linux-compatible kernel in 26,000 lines of code

#157

Post by pabs3 »

Blikkentrekker wrote: post #119
surajrmal wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Linux magically solves this problem how? GPL isn't magic. It doesn't compel contributing upstream. And half of modern driver stacks live in userspace anyways.

There are also so many G.P.L. violations and nothing is done about it. I think a big issue is also that it's hard to show actual damages with this kind of copyright violation. It's obviously copyright violation but what damages are there really? Also, there are so many dubious cases where it's not clear whether it is a violation or not.

Software Freedom Conservancy have been doing GPL compliance actions for a long time, especially if you consider their staff's previous lawsuit that resulted in OpenWRT existing. Also the more recent Vizio lawsuit is kinda interesting, it aims to enable any recipient of GPLed binaries to sue for GPL compliance.

https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/ https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html

Re: Moss: a Rust Linux-compatible kernel in 26,000 lines of code

#158

Post by kennykartman »

hexagonal-sun wrote: post #2

Hello! For the past 8 months, or so, I've been working on a project to create a Linux-compatible kernel in nothing but Rust and assembly. I finally feel as though I have enough written that I'd like to share it with the community! I'm currently targeting the ARM64 arch, as that's what I know best. It runs on qemu as well as various dev boards that I've got lying around (pi4, jetson nano, AMD Kria, imx8, etc). It has…

Ah, nice. I wish this was licensed GPL instead of MIT. I'll avoid contribution, sorry!

Re: Moss: a Rust Linux-compatible kernel in 26,000 lines of code

#159

Post by Blikkentrekker »

F3nd0 wrote: post #144
Blikkentrekker wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyleft doesn't work well with Rust's ecosystem of many small crates and heavy reliance on libraries alongside static linking. If one library be GPLv2 and the other GPLv3 they couldn't be used together in one project. LGPL solves nothing because it's all statically linked anyway. And yes, one could licence under both under the user's choice but then GPLv4 comes out and the process repeats itself, and yes one could u…

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think all of these are solved problems. LGPL should only pose a problem if you explicitly want your program to be used with non-free software. And then only if said non-free software doesn't give you a way to rebuild it yourself, should you want to modify the LGPL program. (So not a problem for open-core or public-source projects, either.) If, for some reason, you insist on allowing sta…

> LGPL should only pose a problem if you explicitly want your program to be used with non-free software. And then only if said non-free software doesn't give you a way to rebuild it yourself, should you want to modify the LGPL program. (So not a problem for open-core or public-source projects, either.)

No, just if you want it to be used with anything that isn't that exact same GPL licence.

> Otherwise, when releasing your project under GPLv3+, you don't have to put blind faith into the FSF; you can designate a proxy which will decide whether the new version should be allowed for your project or not. This proxy can be yourself, or it can be a different organisation you choose to trust. Plus, I'm pretty sure the GPL allows you to make linking exceptions of your liking.

That's the same as just licencing under the GPLv3 and later retroactively deciding to also give the GPLv4 option when liking that licence. The issue is, what if you don't? Then your code can't be combined with any GPLv4 library.

The simple reality is that crates that have incompatible licences, and GPLv2 and GPLv3 are incompatible, cannot be used together in one distributed project without committing copyright infringement. The thing with MIT is that it's compatible with about every single licence out there.

Re: Moss: a Rust Linux-compatible kernel in 26,000 lines of code

#160

Post by cryptonector »

phkahler wrote: post #145
cryptonector wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I take this as an oblique critique of TFA's choice of license. What's it to you? Why must we all use the GPL always in order to satisfy busybodies?

>> I take this as an oblique critique of TFA's choice of license. What's it to you? Why must we all use the GPL always in order to satisfy busybodies? Thank you for reading it correctly. I originally had a to make sure nobody thought I liked the license choice. What's it to me? Well someone posted it to HN here so we could comment on it, so I did. I think the MIT license has its place, but IMHO it does not belong on…

Glad the author disagrees with you. So do I.
Post reply on HN