trevor (any/all)

  • 0 Posts
  • 14 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 10th, 2023

help-circle

  • 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” :/


  • IMO it isn’t in bad faith any speech making that apparent.

    I’m not sure I understand what you meant (there may be a typo in there).

    The language, as an inanimate object, doesn’t have an ideology, sure. However, people running the show in partnership with the ruling class have.

    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’s false and 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.