I find it highly concerning that Ubuntu is using Rust as a guise to replace GPL components like GNU GPG with GPL components like Sequoia PGP.
/s
the sarcasm tag makes it tough to tell if you’re serious.
I’m not a believer in the theory that Canonical is trying to migrate everything to MIT so they can have their proprietary Linux. Some people think that their move to Rust projects is a cover for that goal.
But in this case, Canonical Sequoia PGP is still GPL, so the conspiracy doesn’t make sense here. Hence my joke.
All evidence just points to Jon Seager, VP of Engineering at Canonical, just really liking Rust.
i just started learning rust and intend to get my feet wet w lemmy, so i’m becoming inclined to believe in its virtues so i can understand why someone would prefer it over the alternative.
i’ve also been painfully duped by google’s “don’t be evil” motto and it’s segued me into learning about the intrinsic nature of corporations that make them capitalize on any advantage they have at their disposal if it results in a profit – be it a well intentioned & needful technology improvement or a fascist leader w expectations as an audience.
if history repeats itself – and i’m inclined to agree that it usually does – seager will not have a say if they end up making an mit licensed linux.
i’m also inclined to look for silver linings in dark clouds and ubuntu represents a majority of my professional life as a software engineer, so i’m know i’ll atleast like the new canonical LinuxTM if it comes into being. lol
Consider: Canonical developed and released new tools made in-house this year. They’re GPLv3 licensed.
You have to be careful with in-house developed tools though. Canonical outright owns the majority of the code and outside contributors need to sign a contributor’s licensing agreement that would allow Canonical to use their code in a proprietary version if Canonical chose to do so.
Yes, the GPL version would still exist, but Canonical could continue working on the proprietary version and not push the commits to the GPL version.
I’m not saying Canonical would do this. And you can replace “Canonical” in the prior sentences with any company and/or software that requires a contributor licensing agreement.
– consider as in a counterargument that they’re going to make a proprietary linux?
