I posted this over /r/StallmanWasRight and I am not sure it would be taken well at /r/Rust so here we are.


I have been getting into Rust in the last year but the licensing ecosystem of Rust crates makes me perplexed.

Today I came along this project https://github.com/uutils/coreutils that is trying to rewrite GNU coreutils in Rust and it is likely over the years projects like this one will overshadow many of the legacy GNU projects.

They are almost all made on “permissive” licenses that will give so much more power to corporations, in fact I am absolutely sure all these (big) rewrites are sponsored by corporations to escape the GNU safeguards that were built to protect users and society.

Does anyone else see this or am I just too paranoid ?

EDIT: It is not my intention to single out any specific project/team. Instead, I aim to initiate a meaningful discussion regarding the licensing choice. Rust is likely the first language since C that holds the capability to effectively replace the decades old, legacy libraries.

  • nous@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    That is because GPL libraries are a pain for corporations. And popular languages like rust are built by corporations and a lot of the libraries for them are built by corporations. Rust would not be the same language as it is today without their contributions. If it were all GPL far few companies would want to use it so far fewer developers would be able to use it which would stunt its popularity. This is also true of python libraries and npm libraries which are mostly under permissive licences.

    • anlumo@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      The GPL is also incompatible with modern appstores, which makes them less valuable. I personally don’t touch anything GPL for work, only for hobby projects.

          • nous@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            That only talks about the Apple app store licence. Not App stores in general. All depends on the licence they impose on the apps. Flatpak, snap, flathub for instance are all app stores that distrabute lots of opensource code, some of which if GPL.

            • anlumo@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Yeah, I didn’t refer to those. Google’s and Microsoft’s store have the same issue probably, though.

              • nous@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                You should be specific then, you only said modern appstores which does include those I mentioned. So while some appstores are incompatible with the GPL that does not include all modern appstores. Fairly sure googles appstore has some GPL stuff on it? Not sure about microsofts. All depends on their license. IMO best not to assume everyone is as restrictive as Apple is.

                • anlumo@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I’m fairly hesitant to call something that doesn’t sell anything a “store”.

                  • nous@programming.dev
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    A store, as in a place to store or accumulate things. Not as in shop, a place to buy things. Seems like it is still applicable here.