Hacker News Reader

Comment by beeflet | Hacker News Reader

yeah it sucks that a lot of the rust ecosystem is pushing permissive licenses over copyleft

Rust libraries "have to" be permissive due to the way they are compiled. Rust's current compilation method requires everything to be compiled with the exact version of the compiler at the same exact setup due to lack of ABI compatibility guarantees. This means everything has to be compiled from source. LGPL doesn't work since it will force companies to release their entire source code.

Without the ease for proprietary software development Rust wouldn't get as popular nor it would receive the same support from big tech. Without that popular support it wouldn't be as performant, nor it would attract the top system programmers it did.

It is also extremely naive to think that copyleft licenses aren't actively violated. It is rampant and at this point violating them is the industry standard actually. Making software effectively "ownerless" by accepting many independent developers makes it also equally hard to defend its licenses. The socioeconomic system of the West prioritizes private ownership. Without a clear private owner (or a consortium acting on behalf), it is hard to defend GPL and the rights.

a permissive license is essentially the worst case scenario for a violated copyleft license

copyleft is less free than permissive. noone should be compelled to share their work if they don't want to.

But we collectively should be compelled to protect it under IP law?

I’m personally completely fine(legally not morally) with people or organizations who want to keep trade secrets secret, but not if they also want society to protect anyone copying their work. The tradeoff is you show society how to accomplish your innovation and we’ll guarantee you profits for X years with the might of law

Edit: this was in response to the comment about no one should be compelled to share their work. I don’t know enough about the nuances of copyleft vs permissive licenses to have useful commentary

Individual freedom doesn't exist in a vacuum, it is only effective if collective freedom is aimed and enforced. Having the freedom to live under a roof at the condition that you have enough money isn't something I'd consider actual freedom, and yet someone is free to restrict access to land and empty housing. That is plain stupid for a healthy society

the "freedom" being limited in this case is the freedom to privatize otherwise public work

privatise your additional work on top of the public work. the public work doesn't stop being public.

In theory. In practice it does stop being public because it is either sold or used as a leverage as a whole, public and private parts together.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com