LinuxWebLog.com

Christoph Hellwig continues to voice strong opposition to Rust in the Linux kernel, arguing that its introduction creates fragmentation, unclear language guidelines, and additional burdens on maintainers. He also says Linus Torvalds has privately stated he will override objections to Rust code, effectively making its adoption inevitable. Phoronix's Michael Larabel has the latest: The latest on Hellwig's perspective of Rust code within the Linux kernel is below. Some interesting insight from a dissenting view. The thread in full can be found on the Rust for Linux mailing list. [Here's an excerpt from the thread:] "I don't think having a web page in any form is useful. If you want it to be valid it has to be in the kernel tree and widely agreed on. It also states factually incorrect information. E.g. 'Some subsystems may decide they do not want to have Rust code for the time being, typically for bandwidth reasons. This is fine and expected.' while Linus in private said that he absolutely is going to merge Rust code over a maintainers objection. (He did so in private in case you are looking for a reference). So as of now, as a Linux developer or maintainer you must deal with Rust if you want to or not. [...] Right now the rules is Linus can force you whatever he wants (it's his project obviously) and I think he needs to spell that out including the expectations for contributors very clearly."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

PAjamian writes: Two years ago Red Hat announced an end to its public source code availability. This caused a great deal of outcry from the Enterprise Linux community at large. Since then many have waited for a statement from the Free Software Foundation concerning their stance on the matter. Now, nearly two years later the FSF has finally responded to questions regarding their stance on the issue with the following statement: Generally, we don't agree with what Red Hat is doing. Whether it constitutes a violation of the GPL would require legal analysis and the FSF does not give legal advice. However, as the stewards of the GNU GPL we can speak how it is intended to be applied and Red Hat's approach is certainly contrary to the spirit of the GPL. This is unfortunate, because we would expect such flagship organizations to drive the movement forward. When asked if the FSF would be willing to intervene on behalf of the community they had this to say:As of today, we are not aware of any issue with Red Hat's new policy that we could pursue on legal grounds. However, if you do find a violation, please follow these instructions and send a report to license-violation@gnu.org. Following is the full text of my original email to them and their response: Subject: Statement about recent changes in source code distribution for Red Hat Enterprise LinuxDate: 2023-07-16 00:39:51 > Hi,>> I'm a user of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, Rocky Linux and other Linux> distributions in the RHEL ecosystem. I am also involved in the EL> (Enterprise Linux) community which is being affected by the statements> and changes in policy made by Red Hat at> https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/furthering-evolution-centos-stream and> https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/red-hats-commitment-open-source-> response-gitcentosorg-changes> (note there are many many more links and posts about this issue which> I> believe you are likely already aware of). While a few of these> questions are answered more directly by the license FAQ some of them> are> not and there are a not insignificant number of people who would very> much appreciate a public statement from the FSF that answers these> questions directly.>> Can you please comment or release a statement about the Free Software> Foundation's position on this issue? Specifically:> Thank you for writing in with your questions. My apologies for the delay, but we are a small team with limited resources and can be challenging keeping up with all the emails we receive. Generally, we don't agree with what Red Hat is doing. Whether it constitutes a violation of the GPL would require legal analysis and the FSF does not give legal advice. However, as the stewards of the GNU GPL we can speak how it is intended to be applied and Red Hat's approach is certainly contrary to the spirit of the GPL. This is unfortunate, because we would expect such flagship organizations to drive the movement forward. > Is Red Hat's removal of sources from git.centos.org a violation of the> GPL and various other Free Software licenses for the various programs> distributed under RHEL?>> Is Red Hat's distribution of source RPMs to their customers under> their> subscriber agreement sufficient to satisfy the above mentioned> licenses?>> Is it a violation if Red Hat terminates a subscription early because> their customer exercised their rights under the GPL and other Free> Software licenses to redistribute the RHEL sources or create> derivative> works from them?>> Is it a violation if Red Hat refuses to renew a subscription that has> expired because a customer exercised their rights to redistribute or> create derivative works?>> A number of the programs distributed with RHEL are copyrighted by the> FSF, some examples being bash, emacs, GNU core utilities, gcc, gnupg> and> glibc. Given that the FSF has standing to act in this matter would> the> FSF be willing to intervene on behalf of the community in order to get> Red Hat to correct any of the above issues?> As of today, we are not aware of any issue with Red Hat's new policy that we could pursue on legal grounds. However, if you do find a violation, please [follow these instructions][0] and send a report to <license-violation@gnu.org>. [0]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html If you are interested in something more specific on this, the Software Freedom Conservancy [published an article about the RHEL][1] situation and hosted a [panel at their conference in 2023][2]. These cover the situation fairly thoroughly. [1]: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/jun/23/rhel-gpl-analysis/[2]: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/jul/19/rhel-panel-fossy-2023/

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Hector Martin has resigned as the project lead of Asahi Linux, weeks after stepping down from his role as a Linux kernel maintainer for Apple ARM support. His departure from Asahi follows a contentious exchange with Linus Torvalds over development processes and social media advocacy. After quitting kernel maintenance earlier this month, the conflict escalated when Martin suggested that "shaming on social media" might be necessary to effect change. Torvalds sharply rejected this approach, stating that "social media brigading just makes me not want to have anything at all to do with your approach" and suggested that Martin himself might be the problem. In his final resignation announcement from Asahi, Martin wrote: "I no longer have any faith left in the kernel development process or community management approach." The dispute reflects deeper tensions in the Linux kernel community, particularly around the integration of Rust code. It follows the August departure of another key Rust for Linux maintainer, Wedson Almeida Filho from Microsoft. According to Sonatype's research, more than 300,000 open source projects have slowed or halted updates since 2020.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.