Great, an MIT license to accelerate planned obsolescence and hardware junk. Truly a brilliant move

Seriously.

To the author: kudos for the interesting project, but please strongly consider a copyleft license moving forward.

No, but if someone takes the free food and builds a business by selling it to others, without giving anything back to the original places, it harms everyone other than the person doing that.

F/LOSS is not a charity or a gift, so your analogy is not appropriate. It is a social movement and philosophy with the goal of sharing knowledge and building software for the benefit of everyone. It invites collaboration, and fosters a community of like-minded people. Trust is an implicit requirement for this to succeed, and individuals and corporations who abuse it by taking the work of others and not giving anything back are harmful to these goals. Copyleft licenses exist precisely to prevent this from happening.

MIT is a fine license for many projects, but not for an operating system kernel.

While the FSF's vision for the GPL is clear, the GPL itself is not so powerful that it is more than a "gift" that has some terms if you want to do certain things you are not obligated to do. It is like a grant that enforces some reasonable conditions so the money isn't just misappropriated. I wouldn't give that to a friend for their birthday, but I think it's reasonable that powerful organizations should not be free to do whatever they want. Not that the GPL is perfect for that use, but it's good.

MIT is throwing a free party where food and drinks are paid for, and copyleft is where food is paid for but you BYOB. Both are fine, so what's the problem?

A gift where the recipient can remove the freedoms that they've been enjoying themselves is a bad deal for ensuring those freedoms are available to everyone. A permissive license is a terrible idea for a F/LOSS kernel.

This is the paradox of tolerance, essentially.

Also, seeing F/LOSS as a "gift" is an awful way of looking at it.

> It's more like a contractual agreement with something provided and specific, non-negotiable obligations.

The obligation is not to the author of the code, it is to the public. MIT-style licenses are gifts to people and companies who produce code and software, copyleft licenses are gifts to the public.

I don't give a shit about the happiness of programmers any more than the happiness of garbage collectors, sorry. I don't care more that you have access to the library you want to use at your job writing software for phones than I care that somebody has access to the code on their own phone. You're free to care about what you want, but the pretense at moral superiority is incoherent.

It is non-negotiable. GPL is basically proprietary software. It's owned by the public, and all of the work that you do using it belongs to the public. If you steal it, you should be sued into the ground.

Yeah, for example embassy-rs is an RTOS that uses rust async on tiny microcontrollers. You can hook task execution up to a main loop and interrupts pretty easily. (And RTIC is another, more radically simple version which also uses async but just runs everything in interrupt handlers and uses the interrupt priority and nesting capability of most micros to do the scheduling)

Ok, I see. I spent a lot of time with .Net VMs, where you cannot simply separate await from the heavy machinery that runs it. I now understand that in a kernel context, you don't need a complex runtime like Tokio. But you still need a way to wake the executor up when hardware does something (like a disk interrupt); but this indeed is not a runtime dependency.

EDIT: just found this source which explains in detail how it works: https://os.phil-opp.com/async-await/

There’s got to be some complexity within the executor implementation though I imagine as I believe you have to suspend and resume execution of the calling thread which can be non-trivial.