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?
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?
What are you referring to? https://www.rust-lang.org/policies/licenses and https://github.com/rust-lang/rust?tab=readme-ov-file#license seem to say otherwise…
This is what @GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml was talking about. Rust isn’t truly free - there’s a trademark restriction on the brand name and logo for commercial use.
See responses to that comment.
I’m neither in opposition to this, nor do I support this. I don’t use Rust, just stating what that netizen was trying to talk about.
Bruh that’s now what I was talking about at all. I don’t consider closed trademarks something that makes software not free. Rust is basically source-available. You can’t modify it without permission. It’s basically proprietary software.
You’re actually wrong about that. You’re free to modify - just that you can’t distribute them under the “Rust” brand or logo. You can use the mascot - Ferris the crab, however. There’s a alternative project called crablang, if you’re dissatisfied with what Mozilla is doing.
Then why are people saying you can’t distribute modified versions at all without permission?
You can’t distribute it with the Rust brand. That part is still true. You could, for example, call it GolfLang, and no one would bother you. Most probably misinformation to snub on a new project.
Rust isn’t a new project. It looks like it’s the most popular language now. I still don’t believe someone made so much drama because of branding restrictions. Firefox have them too. I’ll have to research it myself. Maybe there’s a loophole or law abuse in this situation.