Ladybird Browser Team Selects Swift as Preferred Language
Ladybird Browser Team Selects Swift as Preferred Language
Andreas Kling announces Swift as Ladybird's future language for better safety and ergonomics. Full transition awaits Swift 6.
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're viewing a single thread.
I would have preferred Rust, a language created by Mozilla instead of one with ties to Apple, but I'm not dev so I can't really judge. What are your thoughts?
I don't know anything about Swift, but people like to ignore the fact, that Rust is not entirely free, as it fails to exercise freedom 3.
tl;dr: Rust Foundation don't want you to apply modifications to their language without "explicit approval".
And you are also limited to share modified versions of their software.(If someone can imply, that Python and Perl have similiar restriction — they are not the same, because both of their trademarks protect usage of software against fraud, but you can freely patch and modify it.)
For me personally, seeing LadyBird not choosing Rust as their main language is very promising. Rust software is everywhere now and this is concerning.
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.
If I wanna modify and redistribute their language and use Rust or Cargo in the name I should not have to ask for an explicit permission, this is the freedom 3 problem.
This is also why I gave Python and Perl examples. I can modify both Python and Perl, calling them the same way, but I can not do the same thing with Rust.
I'll leave their trademarks comparsion under the spoiler for those, who interested.
Spoiler
Rust:
Distributing a modified version of the Rust programming language, compiler, or the Cargo package manager with modifications other than those permitted above and calling it Rust or Cargo requires explicit, written permission from the Rust Foundation.
And Python:
Use of the word "Python" when redistributing the Python programming language as part of a freely distributed application -- Allowed. If the standard version of the Python programming language is modified, this should be clearly indicated. For commercial distributions, contact the PSF for permission if your use is not covered by the nominative use rules described in the section "Uses that Never Require Approval" above.
Let's also look at Perl:
People sometimes ask if TPF's use of an onion in the Perl logo means that independent projects that use or relate to Perl need TPF's permission to use an onion of their own design in connection with their project. The answer is "not necessarily" as long as no likelihood of confusion is created. One of the fundamental legal bases for trademark protection is to make sure that the public can depend on a mark as an accurate indicator of a particular source or relationship, and one way of defining trademark infringement is to say that the infringing mark creates a likelihood of confusion. Likelihood of confusion is determined based not only on making a comparison of the marks side-by-side, but also on making a comparison of the contexts in which they are actually used. Thus, it's easy to imagine independent onions that would be fine, and independent onions that might not be.
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.
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.
Please read this and try again.
Try again what? This is a debatable topic. I can simply refer to this line:
As long as these requirements are not so burdensome that they effectively hamper you from releasing your changes, they are acceptable;
And point out, that rebranding a whole programming language is not a piece of cake. So this is burdensome and hence is the issue for freedom.
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.
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.
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.
The easiest example is that you'll have to adapt all Rust-dependant applications to the Rust fork, 'cause it is a programming language.
But still, don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to say that Rust is a bad language or something. I'm just trying to point out on the problem, that was adressed to Rust Foundation before.
Good luck to you too.
That... is not a restriction on freedom 3. You could complain about your inability to use the rust name for anything you want but that is not the same thing as your ability to distribute modified versions of the software. It is also fairly standard practice for foss software to restrict the use of such trademarks. For example, Gnome does pretty much the same thin. FreeBSD as well. Libre Office also has similar restrictions, although they are defined more nebulously. It is not clear to me what usages are allowed with the Linux trademark but they certainly do restrict who can use it and for what and you must get permission before using it. See also, about trademarks in FOSS: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=9d96e1bf-bced-48f7-b5b4-ee561e7a9348
The software is free. The trademarks are not. The four freedoms are about the software and not about trademarks. You could fork Rust and call it Corrosion, just like people have forked Firefox and called it Waterfox.
Its also terrible when it comes to security, specifically crates