Linux

5232 readers

54 users here now

A community for everything relating to the linux operating system

Also check out [email protected]

Original icon base courtesy of [email protected] and The GIMP

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Asterinas: a rust kernel with a linux ABI (asterinas.github.io)

submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

34 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Linux maintainers are unwilling to get rust into the kernel, so some rust folks decided to start writing a new kernel with same ABI. This allows them to make new architectural decisions. An example being their "frame kernel" (something between a monolithic kernel and a microkernel).

If I may say, it's more legible and the tooling is way better, right off the bat.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 38 points 2 months ago (22 children)

I was interested until the website proudly stated that the kernel is not under the GPL, but the weak copyleft MPL. Great, an alternative to the linux kernel for companies to steal, yay...

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago (5 children)

Our choice of the weak-copyleft MPL license reflects a strategic balance:

Commitment to open-source freedom: We believe that OS kernels are a communal asset that should benefit humanity. The MPL ensures that any alterations to MPL-covered files remain open source, aligning with our vision. Additionally, we do not require contributors to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA), preserving their rights and preventing the possibility of their contributions being made closed source.

Accommodating proprietary modules: Recognizing the evolving landscape where large corporations also contribute significantly to open-source, we accommodate the business need for proprietary kernel modules. Unlike GPL, the MPL permits the linking of MPL-covered files with proprietary code.

Wouldn't the LGPL also allow this?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I think it would. Its still a bad idea to allow proprietary modules though. It also allows for EEE shenanigans. I hope they reconsider.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

The Linux kernel already allows proprietary modules via DKMS, and a handful of vendors have been using this for decades, so this is no different. Case in point: NVIDIA driver, and Android vendor drivers.

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (19 replies)