Linux

5191 readers

29 users here now

A community for everything relating to the linux operating system

Also check out !linux_memes@programming.dev

Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Ategon@programming.dev

anzo@programming.dev

dwraf_of_ignorance@programming.dev

Asterinas: a rust kernel with a linux ABI (asterinas.github.io)

submitted 2 months ago by onlinepersona@programming.dev to c/linux@programming.dev

34 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Linux maintainers are unwilling to get rust into the kernel, so some rust folks decided to start writing a new kernel with same ABI. This allows them to make new architectural decisions. An example being their "frame kernel" (something between a monolithic kernel and a microkernel).

If I may say, it's more legible and the tooling is way better, right off the bat.

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

[–] toothbrush@lemmy.blahaj.zone 39 points 2 months ago (22 children)

I was interested until the website proudly stated that the kernel is not under the GPL, but the weak copyleft MPL. Great, an alternative to the linux kernel for companies to steal, yay...

[–] qaz@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago (5 children)

Our choice of the weak-copyleft MPL license reflects a strategic balance:

Commitment to open-source freedom: We believe that OS kernels are a communal asset that should benefit humanity. The MPL ensures that any alterations to MPL-covered files remain open source, aligning with our vision. Additionally, we do not require contributors to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA), preserving their rights and preventing the possibility of their contributions being made closed source.

Accommodating proprietary modules: Recognizing the evolving landscape where large corporations also contribute significantly to open-source, we accommodate the business need for proprietary kernel modules. Unlike GPL, the MPL permits the linking of MPL-covered files with proprietary code.

Wouldn't the LGPL also allow this?

[–] mmstick@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

All source code in Rust is statically-linked when compiled, which thereby renders the LGPL no different from the GPL in practice. For Rust, the MPL-2.0 is a better license because it does not have the linking restriction.

[–] qaz@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Interesting. Is that because the kernel can't load a a module as dylib (I don't know a lot about kernel development) or because dylibs are also somehow statically linked in Rust?

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (18 replies)