Is this actually a GNU project? I don't fully understand who's behind this. I also don't understand why the name would have been chosen, as it seems to not have a good connotation?
I'm also a little confused about their problems with Rust (https://wiki.hyperbola.info/doku.php?id=en:main:rusts_freedo...) Firefox also has the same trademark issues, but there are multiple forks/distributions of it with the trademarked material removed. It seems like a petty thing to bring up on an "about" page.
Also, it feels weird that they complain that linux is including some things they don't like (e.g. HDCP), but at the same time just gloss over that the BSDs are they base of many proprietary products where you can't get the source at all. I mean, I hate DRM and things like HDCP as much as anyone, but it just feels like an _off_? argument?
That said, I don't understand how that is in violation of freedom 3. It is just saying, "if you want to redistribute it, don't call it rust so that nobody gets confused and we don't get stuck supporting your fork." I think that there is a higher barrier for something like firefox due to the graphics, but Rust only has a simple copy and paste. And if your whole purpose is to hard fork, why is that a problem?
I think that the requirement for internet access to build might be harder for Hyperbola's goals, but shrug
I was about to post with the same question about Rust. It looks like there's no issue with using anything other than the "Rust" or "Cargo" names and the logo, as per this:
> You are correct that we intended the trademark to apply when
> distributing a package or other binary called "Rust" -- and in
> particular that if modifications are made, then we would expect a
> trademark request outlining the sorts of changes being made (as the
> policy notes though, we are inclined to accept such a request).
> Also, it feels weird that they complain that linux is including some things they don't like (e.g. HDCP), but at the same time just gloss over that the BSDs are they base of many proprietary products where you can't get the source at all. I mean, I hate DRM and things like HDCP as much as anyone, but it just feels like an _off_? argument?
It's strange, isn't it? The Sony PlayStation applies HDCP to some (all?) game content, and you can't disable it given its OS is based on FreeBSD, which isn't copyleft, so they don't have to release the source. Whereas, if it were hypothetically based on the copyleft kernel Linux, then you might stand a chance of disabling HDCP and recompiling it. Quite unlikely in practice though.
My interpretation of their plan is that the new OS will contain enough GPL code (on top of the BSD base) to effectively prohibit its use in proprietary closed-source products.
I'm also a little confused about their problems with Rust (https://wiki.hyperbola.info/doku.php?id=en:main:rusts_freedo...) Firefox also has the same trademark issues, but there are multiple forks/distributions of it with the trademarked material removed. It seems like a petty thing to bring up on an "about" page.
Also, it feels weird that they complain that linux is including some things they don't like (e.g. HDCP), but at the same time just gloss over that the BSDs are they base of many proprietary products where you can't get the source at all. I mean, I hate DRM and things like HDCP as much as anyone, but it just feels like an _off_? argument?