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.
Permanently Deleted
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.
Permanently Deleted
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.
Permanently Deleted
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.
Permanently Deleted
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