this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2026
146 points (98.7% liked)
Linux
67205 readers
581 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
IMO this rust shit is just an attempt to convert a GPL licensed ecosystem into the Corpo-CHUD preferred MIT license.
Just like with Clang, the Corpo is simply intolerably offended by being asked to contribute back to the community.
If they're translating GPL code to Rust, doesn't that constitute a derived work and require the resulting code to be GPL licenced too?
Yeah, pretty sure rote translations of the same logic into a different language is considered a derivative work. This is why companies making their own version of copyrighted software often take a “clean room” approach to cover their asses where different people study the existing software and write the spec than the people implementing the spec.
Using Rust in no way requires the usage of pushover licenses. While it's true that many devs are using pushover licenses, there are plenty of GPL Rust projects. You are just focusing on the sensationalized ones that get mentioned in news cycles.
It doesn't require, but they use rust as an excuse to do that. Ubuntu's attempts at rust rewrite was all license change iirc.
You geniuses are getting too predictable with your ignorance.
I literally wrote what's quoted above yesterday replying to someone else.
Which is exactly why you're free to license your code under GPL. If corpos can use, then so can you.
Wait waddup with clang? Any sources I could read up on?
Clang seems to mainly be maintained by Apple under the Apache license
It's the general opinion. Except if you're a stray liberal on lemmy.ml/c/Linux
Lemmy is written in Rust. I don't think dessalines is a stray liberal on lemmy.ml lol
You're missing the key part of the argument: relicensing.
Converting a GPL codebase to another language creates a derivative work which, by the terms of the GPL, must be GPL-licensed.
Which speaks to my other comment: nothing about Rust necessitates using corpo licenses. The reason so many things are being rewritten in Rust is that it's a great language and it provides tangible benefits to users. The owning class doesn't need a special language as a pretext to de-GPL an ecosystem. They could do it with C, OCAML, or any other lang.
The language, as an inanimate object, doesn't have an ideology, sure. However, people running the show in partnership with the ruling class have.
IMO any speech about Rust rewritings must denounce how the language can be, and it is, being used to attack software freedom.
I'm not sure I understand what you meant (there may be a typo in there).
This, I agree with. It is very concerning that Rust has so much corporate buy-in. And the structure of The Rust Foundation being operated more like a business than something like the Zig Software Foundation does worry me.
But I often feel the need to chime-in and correct the common misconception that
Rust rewrite == corpo-relicense. It'sfalseand I think the conspiratorial coupling of Rust to corporate embrace-extend-extinguish only serves to discourage people from writing better software.I would love to see a community fork of Rust and its ecosystem one day, but I don't think we get there by discouraging people from writing or using Rust software.
This is a bit of a tangent, so I didn't include it in the above comment, but I don't think "open source" is sufficiently anti-capitalist, so the (A)GPL was never going to save us to begin with. "Open source", as defined by the OSI (a.k.a. a handful of megacorps in a trench coat) and the FSF, prevent "discrimination of use". So if you want your software to be "open source" or "free software", you have to accept that your software can be used by for-profit entities to exploit your labor, and potentially to perform heinous acts, such as military or surveillance usage. What we currently call "copyleft" is actually just copylib 😭
No open source license, not even the (A)GPL, allows you to forbid this. Unfortunately, I don't see an alternative framework being widely adopted anytime soon. It seems that the best you can do for now is use niche licenses like this and just accept that your software can't be considered "open source" :/
there's gccrs
My understanding of
gccrsis that it merely provides a way to compile Rust software with GCC instead of LLVM, which is great! But it's such a small piece of the Rust ecosystem (it's merely a frontend). Maybe it'd be a good starting point for a more copyleft ecosystem in the future though.