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?

  • JimEnglish
    23•29 days ago

    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.

    • Norah - She/TheyEnglish
      8•29 days 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]English
      -7•29 days ago

      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.

      • JimEnglish
        7•29 days ago

        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•29 days 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.

        • @[email protected]English
          0•29 days ago

          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.