Isn't also half the point behind Rust the ability to evade the GPL and make Linux more vulnerable to takeover by corporate? Last I checked Ubuntu is replacing some GNU stuff like coreutils with Rust.

[–] TehPers@beehaw.org 12 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

Yes, that's correct. Whenever you write something in Rust, the license is automatically permissive. In fact, both US and EU copyright law automatically grant an irrevocable, perpetual license to use any and all Rust code that has ever been written for any purpose at all, including for commercial purpose, unless the code was written by a corporation.

Or, you know, you could just:

[package]
license = "GPL-3.0-only"

[–] badmin@lemmy.today 11 points 8 hours ago

To be fair, projects implemented in Rust and adopting the GPL/AGPL are just not that notable.

I mean, you can't expect people here to have heard of, let's say, that thing called Lemmy.

[–] veniasilente@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 7 hours ago

Now that would be a horror story. Then again, it's one of the reasons why I'm asking. Rust fame is just too coincidental with a number of things to not be suspicious. There was a whole thing in C++ (dunno if it's still ongoing) about the "memory safety" meme, as well.

[–] terabyterex@lemmy.world 23 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

are you claiming that a program written in rust evades thr gpl? thats not a thing.

or...

are you saying , things are being rewritten (regardless of language) with a different license. scary but not a rust thing.

[–] veniasilente@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 12 hours ago

The second.

[–] ISO@lemmy.zip 20 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Linux kernel code is GPLv2 licensed irrespective of language.
There are thousands of (A)GPL rust crates/libraries out there.
The majority of crates are indeed still liberally licensed, but so are most new projects from the last decade, irrespective of the choice of implementation language.
Rust project rewrites don't exclusively replace GPL projects, because there aren't actually that many core GPL software packages to replace. Neither sudo nor zlib are GPL software, just to give two examples. A lot of implemented-in-C core packages in your system right now are actually liberally licensed.
And just for the sake of accuracy, the supposed threat of liberal vs. copyleft is not about the so called corporate take over or control. It's about the ability to have proprietary forks/spin-offs. Plenty of GPL projects are corporate-controlled and always have been (see what projects Red Hat maintains).

You should try properly educating yourself on matters, instead of just taking whatever bullshit random often-clueless if not also malicious e-celebs spout at face value, or wherever you're getting these retarded theories from.

[–] terabyterex@lemmy.world 3 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

edit: wait, it looked like you responded to someone else, so if lemmy keeps my comment then i am now explaining why it doesnt make sense

[–] Miaou@jlai.lu 11 points 13 hours ago

What does this have to do with Linux?