←back to thread

Wild – A fast linker for Linux

(github.com)
383 points hkalbasi | 9 comments | 24 Jan 25 16:25 UTC | HN request time: 1.382s | source | bottom
Show context
pzmarzly ◴[24 Jan 25 16:55 UTC] No.42815005[source]▶
Ever since mold relicensed from AGPL to MIT (as part of mold 2.0 release), the worldwide need for making another fast linker has been greatly reduced, so I wasn't expecting a project like this to appear. And definitely wasn't expecting it to already be 2x faster than mold in some cases. Will keep an eye on this project to see how it evolves, best of luck to the author.
replies(5): >>42815102 #>>42815606 #>>42816517 #>>42819089 #>>42819826 #
1. easythrees ◴[24 Jan 25 20:13 UTC] No.42816517[source]▶
Wait a minute, it’s possible to relicense something from GPL to MIT?
replies(2): >>42816559 #>>42817285 #
2. DrillShopper ◴[24 Jan 25 20:18 UTC] No.42816559[source]▶
Yes. Generally you need permissions from contributors (either asking them directly or requiring a contribution agreement that assigns copyright for contributions to either the author or the org hosting the project), but you can relicense from any license to any other license.

That doesn't extinguish the prior versions under the prior license, but it does allow a project to change its license.

3. prmoustache ◴[24 Jan 25 21:53 UTC] No.42817285[source]▶
Yes if you are the only developper and never received nor accepted external contributions or if you managed to get permission from every single person who contributed or replaced their code with your own.
replies(1): >>42817374 #
4. computably ◴[24 Jan 25 22:06 UTC] No.42817374[source]▶
> or if you managed to get permission from every single person who contributed

This makes it sound more difficult than it actually is (logistically); it's not uncommon for major projects to require contributors to sign a CLA before accepting PRs.

replies(3): >>42817562 #>>42824459 #>>42824486 #
5. mrighele ◴[24 Jan 25 22:31 UTC] No.42817562{3}[source]▶
That depends on how old and big is the project. For example Linux is "stuck" on GPL2 and even if they wanted to move to something else it wouldn't be feasible to get permission from all the people involved. Some contributors passed away making it even more difficult.
replies(1): >>42817874 #
6. LeFantome ◴[24 Jan 25 23:16 UTC] No.42817874{4}[source]▶
Not exactly “stuck” since they very explicitly do not want to move to GPL 3.
replies(1): >>42821244 #
7. CaptainOfCoit ◴[25 Jan 25 12:30 UTC] No.42821244{5}[source]▶
Even if they wanted to move to another license (which they don't), they wouldn't be able to do. So sounds exactly like they're "stuck", regardless of what they want.
8. bialpio ◴[25 Jan 25 20:17 UTC] No.42824459{3}[source]▶
How is the problem of "you signed a CLA without authorization by your employer to do so" solved? I'm mostly asking because I saw the following:

"I will not expose people taping out Hazard3 to the possibility of your employer chasing you for your contribution by harassing them legally. A contribution agreement does not solve this, because you may sign it without the legal capability to do so (...)"

https://github.com/Wren6991/Hazard3/blob/stable/Contributing... (this is I believe the repo with design for riscv cores running on RPi Pico 2)

9. prmoustache ◴[25 Jan 25 20:21 UTC] No.42824486{3}[source]▶
These are the ones I refuse to contribute to.