Most active commenters
  • zelcon(3)
  • Defletter(3)
  • amszmidt(3)

←back to thread

Wild – A fast linker for Linux

(github.com)
383 points hkalbasi | 18 comments | 24 Jan 25 16:25 UTC | HN request time: 1.679s | 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 #
panzi ◴[25 Jan 25 03:05 UTC] No.42819089[source]▶
Why does AGPL Vs MIT matter for a linker?
replies(4): >>42819229 #>>42819957 #>>42820650 #>>42821513 #
1. zelcon ◴[25 Jan 25 03:32 UTC] No.42819229[source]▶
Corps don't want to have to release the source code for their internal forks. They could also potentially be sued for everything they link using it because the linked binaries could be "derivative works" according to a judge who doesn't know anything.
replies(2): >>42819466 #>>42820180 #
2. saagarjha ◴[25 Jan 25 04:21 UTC] No.42819466[source]▶
I think you should get new lawyers if this is their understanding of how software licenses work.
replies(2): >>42819928 #>>42825830 #
3. mgsloan2 ◴[25 Jan 25 06:40 UTC] No.42819928[source]▶
See for example https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl...

> Code licensed under the GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL) MUST NOT be used at Google.

replies(1): >>42819962 #
4. jenadine ◴[25 Jan 25 06:49 UTC] No.42819962{3}[source]▶
It’s their loss
replies(1): >>42820578 #
5. pwdisswordfishz ◴[25 Jan 25 07:39 UTC] No.42820180[source]▶
They don't have to release source for internal forks.
replies(1): >>42821477 #
6. Defletter ◴[25 Jan 25 09:34 UTC] No.42820578{4}[source]▶
Is it? Because open source tools re-licensing themselves to be more permissive would seem to indicate whose loss it really is.
replies(2): >>42820844 #>>42823838 #
7. mistercheph ◴[25 Jan 25 10:45 UTC] No.42820844{5}[source]▶
Embrace, extend, extinguish. it could take about a century, but every software company (hardware maybe next century) is in the process of being swallowed by free software. Thats not to say people can’t carve out a niche and have balling corporate retreats for a while.. until the sleeping giant wakes up and rolls over you.
replies(2): >>42823007 #>>42861966 #
8. wyldfire ◴[25 Jan 25 13:18 UTC] No.42821477[source]▶
They do if they're AGPL licensed and the internal form software is used to provide a user facing service.
replies(1): >>42838250 #
9. Defletter ◴[25 Jan 25 17:24 UTC] No.42823007{6}[source]▶
You've just made a pretty outrageous claim without evidence that would require a lot of effort on my part to refute, so I'll just go with: if you say so.
10. michaelmrose ◴[25 Jan 25 19:15 UTC] No.42823838{5}[source]▶
This might indicate moreso that they believe they won't lose anything by the transition and users might ultimately benefit
11. rerdavies ◴[25 Jan 25 23:00 UTC] No.42825830[source]▶
I'm wondering if you've ever actually asked a real corporate lawyer for an opinion on anything relating to GPL licenses. The results are pretty consistent. I've made the trip on three occasions, and the response each time was: "this was not drafted by a lawyer, it's virtually ininterpretable, and it is wildly unpredictable what the consequences of using this software are."
replies(2): >>42837517 #>>42838262 #
12. saagarjha ◴[27 Jan 25 04:46 UTC] No.42837517{3}[source]▶
Why do some companies engage with it then?
13. amszmidt ◴[27 Jan 25 07:15 UTC] No.42838250{3}[source]▶
But then it isn’t “internal”…
replies(1): >>42861990 #
14. amszmidt ◴[27 Jan 25 07:17 UTC] No.42838262{3}[source]▶
Eh, all the GNU family of licenses were drafted by lawyers.

Just using any Copyleft software has no legal consequences (copyleft licenses kick in when distributing, not using them).

15. zelcon ◴[29 Jan 25 05:49 UTC] No.42861966{6}[source]▶
Free software basically only exists because it’s subsidized by nonfree software. It also has no original ideas. Every piece of good free software is just a copy of something proprietary or some internal tool.
replies(1): >>42997919 #
16. zelcon ◴[29 Jan 25 05:55 UTC] No.42861990{4}[source]▶
It’s too hard to determine what pieces of your stack interact with public-facing services, particularly in a monorepo with thousands of developers. The effort involved and the legal risk if you get it wrong makes it an easy nope. Just ban AGPL.
replies(1): >>42916626 #
17. amszmidt ◴[03 Feb 25 09:52 UTC] No.42916626{5}[source]▶
The effort involved, and legal risk is exactly the same as for any Copyleft license. If you don't know what your stack is doing, that is the problem -- not the license.
18. Defletter ◴[10 Feb 25 08:03 UTC] No.42997919{7}[source]▶
Do you have any kind of source for such claims?