←back to thread

383 points hkalbasi | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.213s | source
Show context
pzmarzly ◴[] 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 ◴[] No.42819089[source]
Why does AGPL Vs MIT matter for a linker?
replies(4): >>42819229 #>>42819957 #>>42820650 #>>42821513 #
zelcon ◴[] 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 #
saagarjha ◴[] No.42819466[source]
I think you should get new lawyers if this is their understanding of how software licenses work.
replies(2): >>42819928 #>>42825830 #
rerdavies ◴[] 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 #
1. saagarjha ◴[] No.42837517[source]
Why do some companies engage with it then?