Okay, so the FSF has recognized that there are issues. Fine, they are nevertheless going with the absolute wrong ideas after that. Time for discussions is long over.

BUT: The article here ... https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/jul … -and-rust/ ... is helpful as it notifies us to think again about PHP. It is not copyleft so far when looking on it.

So this is another point for a possible very fast and needed removal in the future. Instead of discussing endless: There is work needed as otherwise projects get out of the free and libre spheres. It is not good to build on projects not staying true for free, libre and copyleft licensing as this tower-building is not stable otherwise.

"
### Software freedom & trademarks: Examining Rust's new policy through the lens of free software history

*From July 27 by Denver Gingerich*

This article, recently published by the Software Freedom Conservancy,
examines the programming language Rust's new trademark policy through
the lens of history. Other similar trademark policies in the past such
as Java's, PHP's, and Mozilla's have had consequences for the free
software community. Inform yourself about this relevant and important
topic by examining these case studies, and use this knowledge to
prepare yourself for the inevitable discussions ahead.

  * <https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/jul … -and-rust/>

"

So my original meaning here: Don't fall into the trap to be too less into details. There are always details to be looked at and Android being "bad in design" is also a point on which ROM with what applications and services used / installed.

Unless modern means crap.

Which for some software/hardware seems to be completely true.

I'm for sure interested, but as you have pointed out: GO and Rust has some comparable problems. GO is downloading dependencies at build-time, while Rust is in need for crates to build further.

But thanks for pointing on crablang - besides that the current project is also referring cargo direct so they would need to go further. Question stays if in the end the Rust-Foundation is all okay with it. Hyperbola is staying there for a reason on our current legacy version of librsvg.
And crablang is then also using non-free platforms for communication, like Discord and Twitter. Their decision for sure. But that's one of the problems: Just to look on convinience within the browser, not to underline that part for anyone here. Just the perspective to watch.

I would state that many people look on Rust foremost to get a more modern webbrowser or what is called something like that. Personally I tend to the opposite, because when your webbrowser is able to emulate something like "Windows 95" for example or even start a complete DOS-environment there is something going wrong for sure. We just speak about a software original used to display static sites. What is done today? Playing movies, emulate whole environments and even use some games within. Sorry, but that's the complete wrong direction and calling that "modern" is looking like a joke. Same for "streaming" and more: It is not to forbid something, but just to question what price is needed to manage and execute that. While we are heading towards in a complete different direction with "open-source": It will never hit the point as the word includes not the freedom to learn or do whatever is possible. Everything can be called "open-source" today, when only the source-code is available. But this does not make corresponding projects not per definition "free and libre". It is just a statement about the current state and location of the source-code. Is the resulting application able even to be executed without further parts and data? Is it something different? That's all not included and to use that makes "free and libre software" going down under wrong wording. The action taken now by Rust is just another approval. And even a fork from this desaster won't get more free, even using another license. A broken project stays also broken!

We have too many quick constructed projects with languages like NodeJS and Rust running those days. Maybe they look promising at a point? The aftermath of them is just another dark and sinister story. So compiling Rust without Rust is not possible, even a forked project would need to begin with Rust to be compiled and packaged. All wrong within!

a fork has happened and there are developers working hard at implementing Rust support in GCC which should help get a unencumbered bootstrap by compiling the fork with GCC and compiling the fork with itself, of course that is just the beginning because even librsvg rust and icecat need source tarballs ending in .crate to build their dependencies so to make rust actually libre a build tool that supports detecting and linking to static rust dependencies installed in the system would also be needed and yes this shows rust is a flawed language

EDIT: fork seems to be called crablang and the rust gcc efforts are named gccrs
EDIT 2 : im not intrested in rust for a new version of icecat im intrested in developing with rust myself

We have too many quick constructed projects with languages like NodeJS and Rust running those days. Maybe they look promising at a point? The aftermath of them is just another dark and sinister story. So compiling Rust without Rust is not possible, even a forked project would need to begin with Rust to be compiled and packaged. All wrong within!

But you do raise a good point, because its developed in a sneaky way that is broken by design. So yes, it isn't "libre"

If anything it is, fully open source, which seems to be not good enough in this example, if nothing else.

Even without non-free licenses, annoyances and crap can hit the fan.

As an edit:

This is why at one point I said even if Purism could develop fully libre operating system I still would be shifty of  buying their stuff still.

Although when I said that, I meant open source probably.

So yeah... things are rarely as simple as people think them to be.

zapper may be referring to software which is licensed under e.g. GPL v2 or v3, but is either partially or entirely corporate backed and/or developed, but I wouldn't term this "libre" software.

Corporations don't necessarily always opt for permissive licensing when developing free code.  They may use the GPL licenses for a very specific reason for a certain project, as they want to harness and abuse the viral nature of GPL.  In some cases a permissive licence is not just the "best" option for such projects, but it's a necessity, as they would rather "disown" the code and just put it out there, than deal with all the GPL entanglement pitfalls.  In certain other cases, using GPL means your competitor(s) can't reuse the code without making all of their changes and additions available under the same license - so licensing GPL makes more sense, than e.g. ISC, MIT or 2 clause BSD, where you're effectively just giving the code away.

In other examples the license becomes almost irrelevant due to the a hideously complex code base, bespoke build system and an overall design which makes portability next to impossible.

Many large projects, such as Android, were designed in such as way that the GPL parts (the kernel some other elements) are deliberately masked from the rest of the OS, by LGPL and permissive licensed code..  If you read the earlier presentations on Android's design, it's all in there.

3 bullet pointed mission objectives for bionic libc and look at the first one:

https://image.slidesharecdn.com/android … 33-638.jpg
https://web.archive.org/web/20160408053 … ndroid.pdf

Therefore systems are either free, libre defined or just oriented towards some shady "open-source". But they are not using "corporate libre software". It is correct that those pragmatic perspective is not really helpful and endangering free and libre culture. Ignoring those courses, not running after any of them and just draw a line with good values and principles. Either free, libre software and culture is seen as something worthy - in time, in engagement and also support - or not. If it is drawn into shady definitions - and "open-source" is that for sure - this is no longer free and libre culture. It is just the known "corporate" perspective.

Ubuntu derivatives for sure, most Arch derivatives too, Definitely most RPM distros and even some Debian derivatives too tend to have bloat.

I am aware OpenBSD isn't a distro btw and that open source is a problematic road in many situations.

The problem being, another problem has spawned that has been largely ignored, which is:

Corporate Libre Software

This adds another annoying dimension and makes it harder to sort out the problems.

Bloat adds vulnerabilities and makes them harder to fix long term, etc... then the rabbit hole just gets larger in such a case.

Btw, in my opinion, unless the open source people are directly aligned with bloating hardware/software, I don't think BSD devs should be enemies of libre devs.

There's always the ADA implementation with GNAT (gcc-ada in packages) for memory safety.

thanks for that suggestion