Yeah I mean it's literally what the term "open source rugpull" means. Every business will ultimately renege on their open source promises. It's literally against their fiduciary duty to shareholders not to, once they've run out of actual growth ideas. Even if current management is idealistic, eventually, they will be replaced with "real leaders" who know that they need to make money.
But, ideally, it's not that big a deal, because the community (or even newer non-calcified businesses) can fork the last open source branch and continue development.
Unfortunately, with something as complex as an OS, that's incredibly difficult. It does seem regrettably unlikely that, for the foreseeable future, there will be no practically usable open-source phone OSes.
I strongly encourage you to glance at the dissents for that case. That is very much not the case. The Supreme Court willingly ignored very important evidence that was the case.
Ordinarily you'd be correct that you need the weird make overload, but I had no cause to invoke make I just told Odin that we don't care and it's fine, check the first line. Whether that feature is a good idea in this language I couldn't say.
Odin's decision to zero initialize local variables isn't relevant here.
I didn't fully flesh out the initializing local variables: What part of your code is undefined? You deleted the memory, and the compiler reused it. Then you re-accessed that same memory. That's just part of working with computers. The initialization comment was supposed to be from creating data to releasing it is defined. To be compliant with the Odin compiler spec, it's defined from start to end.
Using a variable (`some_map` in this case) after `delete`ing it doesn't seem something languages usually define in their specification. Does Odin define that?
I don't really get the distinction between adding the dynamic-literals feature flag and using unsafe in Rust? Like, if he had called it #+unsafe dynamic-literals, would that have been better?
I'm going to guess that you've never written, and perhaps never read, any unsafe Rust, because you (in common with several Rust critics) seem to be imagining it like a switch you can turn on somehow to disable the safety rules, and that's not what it is at all.
This Odin feature flag just allows me to write what I meant in Odin, I can write it all out by hand using make and so on without the feature flag, but it's more annoying to spell that all out which presumably was the impetus for this feature flag in the first place. The flag didn't somehow "cause" the unsafety, that's an insane take.
Odin isn't very well documented, so as somebody who was writing Odin just to explain the problem here, the easier option avoids trying to guess which of a dozen undocumented functions with names that may be related to hash maps is the "right" function to do what I meant, I can just write what I meant and turn on the feature flag to acknowledge that it involved allocation.
I can't reply to the reply to this one (guess the thread is getting too deep), but I just wanted to clarify that I'm not a rust critic, I use rust, I like rust, I have no problem with rust. OK great, moving on...
The lack of reply is probably because the thing you wanted to respond to was new.
This is a deliberate HN behaviour to discourage frantic conversations, like you might have if this was a Zoom call for example, or we'd had this disagreement in a bar (presumably a bar where there's a Compiler Explorer built in, or maybe literally Matt Godbolt is sat there with a laptop?)
Maybe it works? I have had some positive experiences.
If you know unsafe Rust the comparison to this Odin feature feels odd, but OK. Surely the Odin feature is more like when let-chains was unstable but you could tell the Rust nightly compiler you want that feature anyway ? Or... explicit_tail_calls which gives you a way to write explicit tail calls† in nightly Rust ?
† This is a very cool feature if you're a functional programmer using the "become" keyword, you get tail call optimisation but it's mandatory, if what you've written can't work as a tail call then it won't compile, if it could work it does.
I think this one asks you to pay for it after a bit. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Just felt bad about getting a little bit in, and then being hit with a decent pay wall.
Right, I mean, author has the right to do this -- but it still seems like a gloriously stupid thing to try to get someone to pay for in this way; like what market is this?
Like, I'd bet "Pay $10 if you like it" / ReaperWare would earn this person literally an order of magnitude more money.
Personally, I would happily pay for vim-adventures, but never monthly. It provides one-time value, it should have one-time cost. I'd much rather pay a one-time cost and get a downloadable local copy.
I paid for it, was worth it for me. Reason: I did vimtutor 4 times and was learning but found it super painful/boring, but really wanted to learn vim keybindings. Vim adventures made learning keybindings and muscle memory just tolerable that I could do 1h in the evening even after a long/busy/tedious day. I probably would have persisted learning vim keybindings without it, but it definitely made doing so less painful.
A free alternative for learning just hjkl, nethack supports this way of moving[1]. Remember to keep your index finger on ‘j’ (don’t shift your hand to ‘h’), to build the muscle memory.
Recently my apartment management company added an option to pay your rent in two payments over the month, rather than all at once at the beginning of the month. I didn't look into it, but there's always a catch with these "pay in installments" systems. Nothing in this world is free.
A Linux PC handheld is the game changing part. It's a big boon to the Linux gaming community because of the amount of effort Valve has put into Linux in the Proton layer. It gives devs a target Linux platform to build to and test to. And it gives Linux distro devs a target to get very good game compatability.
I see the handheld as a stepping stone. The big benefit to a console style device is a very small amount of hardware to target, whereas the PC market at large is a very large amount of hardware to target.
The handheld was just a market that didn't have much competition at the time. Which likely made it easy to justify it as a business decision for Valve.
Its all part of the stack. Every part of it was critical. Id say proton without the deck wouldnt have the same impact because there would be nothing to create the groundswell of linux adoption for gaming
Adding the copyright notice to be in compliance, does not change the fact that the author has chosen a licence that allows anyone, including Microsoft, to do whatever they feel like, without giving back.
So eventually, with this bad publicity, they will add the copyright notice, and move on with whatever else they are doing, in full compliance.
Not arguing for Microsoft, rather the fact that people put out MIT licenced stuff out there, or similar, arguing how bad GPL happens to be, and then get all up in arms when companies do exactly what the licence allows for.
Microsoft might not have fully complied with the licence, adding the copyright notice to fix that, won't change a millimeter from what they are doing.
I don't disagree with the general point but in this case we're looking at what (seems to be) a blatant copyright violation. It would not be any more or less of a violation if the infringed license had been a more or less permissive one, because the license has not been followed.
Sure, the MIT is very permissive so it's very easy for Microsoft to correct their repository so that it's in compliance for the future, but they cannot correct the past. (Unless the original authors allow for it.) The MIT license, being so short, does not have a provision about curing infringements.
So Microsoft seems to be ok with the risk of being sued for infringement etc. That's not something you can correct with your personal decisions as author.
The point is that the author would not really be much happier if Microsoft had added a few lines admitting substantial portions of code were taken from Spegel. They probably will do this, but I doubt he will be satisfied with the result either way.
The comment above, which I mostly agree with, is that the point of the MIT license to permit anyone, including large corporations, doing this kind of thing. Since this doesn't seem like an outcome the author is happy with, maybe a different license would be better.
That doesn't mean that they would have completely ignored all implications of any other license. The author of the code chose a license that explicitly allows exactly what happened, other than Microsoft did not include a text file that nobody is going to read.
Everybody claims they removed the author's copyright notice. I checked many source files in Spegel, and none of them contain an MIT header with copyright.
I don't think Microsoft removed the copyright notice. I think that the original author did not add one...
Why are you doing this? Posting in a way that suggests purposely confuses/obfuscates the difference between the general concept of a copyright notice and the practice of putting a copyright comment at the top of every file in a project, then immediately get corrected, then post basically the same intentional misunderstanding on someone else's comment elsewhere in the thread.
You:
> I don't think Microsoft removed the copyright notice. I think that the original author did not add one...
Direct quote that from the file containing and requiring the copyright notice in derivative works that was not included in Microsoft's fork. This was also included in a comment which you have replied to:
> The above _copyright notice_ and this permission notice...
You have the timing wrong, I did not do that in the order you suggest :-).
I thought people were saying that Microsoft removed the copyright headers and replaced them with them, which they did not.
Microsoft replaced the LICENSE for the whole repository with their own, and thanked Spegel in their README. While this is some kind of attribution, it's not enough for the MIT LICENSE. I don't know exactly what would be good enough, I think having a copy of the Spegel LICENSE file somewhere in their repo would be enough (though possibly less visible than the line in the README, to be fair).
My overall point is that it feels like people are complaining a lot about what seems to be an honest mistake. And not just that: the way Peerd did it is arguably giving more visibility to Spegel than if they had just copied the licence somewhere in their repo. Peerd could possible just copy the licence somewhere less visible and remove the link from their README.
The file titled LICENSE contains a copyright notice. That's what a license file _is_ in the context of software a LICENSE to use someone's COPYRIGHTed software. You must abide by the terms under which you are granted the license, otherwise you don't have access via the license, and are thus violating the copyright. They aren't two unrelated concepts.
Anything else is noise, they violated the license. They blatantly copied copyrighted works. They can't "oopsie" that away or claim it as a mistake, honest or not. You simply are not allowed to do that.
Suggesting that they "could possible just copy the licence somewhere less visible and remove the link from their README." is wrong. They MUST include the copyright notice and the rest of the license. They don't get to choose whether or not to respect the license. And they don't need to remove the link, That's got nothing to do with the copyright issues. No one at Microsoft thought that call out was somehow the legally required attribution clearly explained in the MIT license.
> Suggesting that they "could possible just copy the licence somewhere less visible and remove the link from their README." is wrong. They MUST include the copyright notice and the rest of the license.
You do realise that those two statements are not incompatible? If they include the licence somewhere less visible and remove the link from their README, they are still including the copyright notice and the rest of the licence.
The MIT licence does NOT say that you MUST have it at the root of your repository in a file called LICENSE. It does not say that you must clearly identify the parts of the code for which you don't own the copyright or anything like this.
The part I was indicating was incorrect was your usage of "could" It's not something they "could" do, it's something they MUST do.
Like saying I choose to not be the richest person in the world. Sure it could be technically true, but the statement is incorrectly implying that it's up to me, or within my power to make the alternative choice.
It's very strange that you keep using these intentionally awkwardly phrased, misleading-adjacent statements.
The rest of your comment is attempting to refute something no one made a case for in the first place, which coupled with the rest of it makes it seem like you are just trying to argument-bait, so I'll tap out here.
> It's not something they "could" do, it's something they MUST do.
Well, maybe I just can't English :-).
They must include the copyright notice and the permission notice. Now I can imagine different ways to achieve that. They could use one or the other, as long as what needs to be included is included.
Depending on how they do it (while staying in the realm of what they MUST do, i.e. include the copyright and permission notices), it gives more or less visibility do Spegel. My point was that linking to Spegel in the README arguably gives more visibility to Spegel than alternatives that they COULD choose. And to make it very very clear: what I consider alternatives that they COULD choose are those that honour the licence.
They removed the attribution to the original authors and replaced it with their own name. So the copyright notice is not preserved. They could comply with the licence by adding back that attribution.
I've been downvoted for it before, but I still say that permissive licenses are charity to megacorps. If you want your work to get turned into a proprietary program without any compensation to you, use a permissive license. If you want to at least have a chance they'll contribute back & maybe pay you for a proprietary license, pick a free-software license.
If you pick a corporate charity license, don't act surprise when corporations take the charity!
