Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: mceier+kernel@gmail.com
Sender: mceier@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <YIrLZ8Siip0C0d9b@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk>
References: <20210414184604.23473-1-ojeda@kernel.org> <CAJTyqKP4Ud7aWxdCihfzeZ3dQe_5yeTAVnXcKDonciez-g2zWA@mail.gmail.com>
 <878s51e3jc.fsf@gmail.com> <CAJTyqKOEG1tF0YGOvNeyidjF+2MaXoY5kCo9-cZ4Ri_Jb8XV8Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <YIrLZ8Siip0C0d9b@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk>
From:   Mariusz Ceier <mceier+kernel@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 29 Apr 2021 16:09:06 +0000
Message-ID: <CAJTyqKOwxL8xGCtz82qdC563gjCduxag88MLo2M+OVhQMahzsQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13] [RFC] Rust support
To:     Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Kajetan Puchalski <mrkajetanp@gmail.com>, ojeda@kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        rust-for-linux@vger.kernel.org, linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On 29/04/2021, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 02:06:12PM +0000, Mariusz Ceier wrote:
>
>> > You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or
>> > in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, *to
>> > be licensed as a whole* at no charge to all third parties under the
>> > terms of this License.
>>
>>
>> The issue here is, non-GPL tools enable development and distribution
>> of GPL-compatible yet proprietary versions of the kernel, unless I'm
>> mistaken.
>
> And?  For your argument to work, we'd need to have the kernel somehow
> locked into the use of tools that would have no non-GPL equivalents
> *and* would be (somehow) protected from getting such equivalents.
> How could that be done, anyway?  Undocumented and rapidly changing
> features of the tools?  We would get screwed by those changes ourselves.
> Copyrights on interfaces?  Software patents?  Some other foulness?
>
> I honestly wonder about the mental contortions needed to describe
> something of that sort as "free", but fortunately we are nowhere
> near such situation anyway.
>

Equivalents are not a problem - they can exist as long as the
distributed source would be buildable with GPL tools. I was thinking
that adding a requirement that the distributed kernel source should be
buildable by GPL tools would be enough to protect it from proprietary
extensions. But maybe you're right that this is unrealistic.

> I don't like Rust as a language and I'm sceptical about its usefulness
> in the kernel, but let's not bring "gcc is better 'cuz GPL" crusades
> into that - they are irrelevant anyway, since we demonstrably *not*
> locked into gcc on all architectures your hypothetical company would
> care about, Rust or no Rust.
>

I don't mind the language. I'm more concerned about featureful rust
compiler suddenly being developed behind closed doors.