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

161–163 of 163 posts

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

#161

Post by sneak »

lumb63 wrote: post #122
sneak wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is neither selfish nor greedy to accept and use a gift freely given to you. Receiving a gift does not confer obligations on the recipient.

Gifts definitely confer obligations on the recipient. You can experience this firsthand: take the next gift a loved one gives you, and then sell it, and let them know. Please report back on how you selling their gift impacts your relationship with that person. People can license their code however they please, but comparing open source software to a gift is not an argument for permissive licenses.

I’ve done precisely this and it was fine. Gifts do not confer obligation. Anyone who thinks they do is at best insincere and at worst a jerk.

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

#162

Post by F3nd0 »

Blikkentrekker wrote: post #159
F3nd0 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

How so? The LGPL only demands the four freedoms for the program it covers, not for the entire project. As long as the user is free to use their own modified version of the LGPL program (by dynamic linking or being able to recompile) and share it with others, the licence should be satisfied, so even if your project as a whole is read-only or has a pushover licence, no?

> That's the same as just licencing under the GPLv3 and later retroactively deciding to also give the GPLv4 option when liking that licence.

It's practically the same if you own all of the code. Which, if you happen to run a public project which ends up accepting a lot of contributions, you won't.

> The issue is, what if you don't? Then your code can't be combined with any GPLv4 library.

Fair enough, but I don't think this problem can be solved. If you want any licensing changes to happen without explicit consent from every single contributor, you have to put a bit of blind trust in someone. My point was that in the case of the GPL, it doesn't have to be only the FSF.

Post reply on HN