Open Source

31243 readers

332 users here now

All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!

Useful Links

Rules

Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

137

Ladybird Browser Team Selects Swift as Preferred Language (linuxiac.com)

submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

64 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I would have preferred Rust, a language created by Mozilla instead of one with ties to Apple, but I'm not a dev so I can't really judge. What are your thoughts?

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

[–] [email protected] 38 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I've read through your links. They don't have much to do with the codebase itself, but with protecting the trademarks.

From what I read, you're free to change whatever you want. You just can't go around using their trademarked names for your modified version.

[+] [email protected] -16 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] jim 23 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Please read this and try again.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#packaging

Rules about how to package a modified version are acceptable, if they don't substantively limit your freedom to release modified versions, or your freedom to make and use modified versions privately. Thus, it is acceptable for the license to require that you change the name of the modified version, remove a logo, or identify your modifications as yours. As long as these requirements are not so burdensome that they effectively hamper you from releasing your changes, they are acceptable; you're already making other changes to the program, so you won't have trouble making a few more.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago

Yeah, I don't exactly think it's particularly burdensome to have to rename your fork so that people don't confuse it with the software you forked from. Without this restriction, FOSS projects would have absolutely zero recourse against bad actors. A non-FOSS competitor could just waltz in, fork their code and turn it into absolute hot garbage, convincing enough people that it's the original project to make it all worth their while.

[+] [email protected] -7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] jim 7 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Dude, if you're being obtuse on purpose because you have an ax to grind against Rust, try a different approach. You're not getting anywhere, clearly by the fact that no one agrees with you.

If you don't like that Rust has a restricted trademark, then call that out instead of trying to label the software and it's license as non-free. It's literally called out in my source that name restrictions ipso facto does not violate freedom 3.

But if you genuinely believe that the implementation of the Rust language and it's trademark is burdensome to create a fork, and you want people to believe you, then you gotta bring receipts. Remember, the benchmark that we both quoted is that it "effectively hampers you from releasing your changes". It being "not a piece of cake" doesn't cut it.

Hint: Google Rust forks since their existence also undermines your claim.

Good luck.

[–] refalo 3 points 3 months ago

As an outsider with no skin in anyone's game, I find it a bit disingenuous to say that one person's interpretation of subjective terms is somehow less "correct" than anyone else's.