I think having “LTS” mean nothing is counterproductive. Why would anyone agree to apply “meaningless” labels like that? It would only confuse people more if we applied a label which implied support but nobody was actually obligated to support it any more than another release.

If I’m a military supplier of nukes to the government, I can freely use GPL and there’s no legal issue with that. You cannot request the nuclear launch software or the guidance control software even if they use GPL licensed code within it. Why? Because they don’t distribute said code to the public. If you develop something for private use, and it never gets a public release there’s no obligation or requirement to release the source! This is especially true for a government contractor that only makes software for a single customer (the government).

I think we’re agreeing that your claim was nonsense at this point, but I still don’t understand where people get these strange ideas about how GPL stops commercial or military use outside of very specific and frankly niche ways. If this is your reason for preferring GPL, it’s poorly thought out.

In purely private (or internal) use—with no sales and no distribution—the software code may be modified and parts reused without requiring the source code to be released. For sales or distribution, the entire source code needs to be made available to end users, including any code changes and additions—in that case, copyleft is applied to ensure that end users retain the freedoms defined above.

GPL code can also be used for commercial and military use. What are you smoking where you think that is even remotely true? Genuinely asking. It feels like people on your side of the argument have all learned what you have from the same, ill informed source.

It’s a bit of a mixed bag for me to be honest. I understand the desire to accurately package dependencies and maintain control over the dependencies without relying on a third party host, but I feel like everyone (whether that’s rust, node, python, ruby, etc) should just maintain a separate registry. As in not package it in the “Debian repos” but a debian mirror of crates.io that the debian maintainers maintain. To whit I can just download the Debian rust toolchain and have it be pointing at the Debian rust package mirror.

I’m sure there’s a lot of extra infra required for something like that, but I genuinely believe it’s more sane to try and get these languages to adopt that, rather than what we have now.

I could be easily swayed another way, but that’s how I feel currently.

Phoronix comment sections never fail to be cesspools

Arch has had rust code in it for months, the timing is only suspicious if you’re making it up in your head.

I think you’re fundamentally misunderstanding what this project is working to achieve. Why wouldn’t a web server be a basic requirement for an identity provider?

Are atanmodernism and cscmodernism a thing?