Re: Attitude
Sounds like my experience with *insert language here*
86 publicly visible posts • joined 28 Mar 2024
There is an interesting point raised in the mailing list. While the Rust bindings are the responsibility of the Rust team, changes to the C API could break the Rust bindings. While it would be on the Rust team to fix, the “you break it, you fix it” policy is broken and getting a change merged is going to depend on both the subsystem maintainer and the Rust team.
> Meta communications director Andy Stone responded with his opinion that Apple is really saying “They don't believe in interoperability. In fact, every time Apple is called out for anti-competitive behavior, they defend themselves on privacy grounds that have no basis in reality."
And Meta is the last organisation I’m going to listen to regarding anything involving privacy.
> - Separate contract that punishes you if you share the source code (such as Red Hat Enterprise Linux, where they can end your support contract and future updates)
From the GPLv3:
> You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License. For example, you may not impose a license fee, royalty, or other charge for exercise of rights granted under this License, and you may not initiate litigation (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that any patent claim is infringed by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the Program or any portion of it.
Is punishing you for exercising your rights under the GPL an “additional term”? I don’t know, I’m not a lawyer.
In this case, it seems like the loss of a single zone caused a knock-on effect in the two other zones.
If you were just running VM's (as you would in your own datacenter) you would've only been affected if your VM's were in that zone (as you would if your self-hosted datacenter had these issues).
The issue I'm seeing here is that some of GCP's managed services weren't resilient to the loss of a single zone, that's a concern.
> The GPL requires you "give back" in return for the free stuff. If you improve it, your improvements are required to be shared.
Not if you're hosting the modified version of the free stuff. This is what Amazon et al were doing.
The AGPL however removes this "SaaS exemption".
They'd have to maintain ABI compatibility with Linux. Possible? Yes. Likely? No.
You also have the rather significant issue of driver support. The AMDGPU driver *could* be ported by a few/a lot of smart people, but a lot of System76 hardware uses NVIDIA GPU's.
> Not being a programmer/developer, it seems to me that asking existing C developers to learn and maintain a C-to-Rust API so that the Linux kernel can be written in Rust is basically the same as pretending that those C developers do the work for the Rust crowd.
The Rust maintainers were going to take on this responsibility.