[notsahil]

And their free and open-source rust plugin is deprecated: https://plugins.jetbrains.com/plugin/8182--deprecated-rust

Quoting MRandl comment from the blog:

> Bit of a malicious move, essentially monetizing the contributions of all the people who worked on the plugin while the open source part slowly falls into deprecation and wontfixes. Not cool at all!

[pohl]

To clarify, TFA says that the open-source plugin will remain open source and freely available on GitHub and the marketplace.

If that's what we're calling "malicious" these days, then I'm not exactly outraged. Rather, I find it exciting that Rust has grown to the point where a commercial entity wants to commit to a commercial product like this.

[wredue]

Well. They’re accusing jetbrains of forking the open repo and then closing it.

The reason it feels malicious is because jetbrains weren’t the only contributors, so they’re monetizing the work of people that were under the impression that the plugin was staying open source due to clion.

[Moomoomoo309]

It cuts both ways. JetBrains is free to close source it, but likewise, anyone can continue to maintain it too. JetBrains has no more power here than anyone else, except for the dev time of their employees.

[VeejayRampay]

the license allows it, there's nothing "malicious" about it

if people care about such things, then they should not contribute to projects using MIT

[ilyagr]

There's a difference between illegal and malicious. If you ask me where the nearest bathroom is, I could point you in the opposite direction, and that'd be legal. Or, if I didn't want to lie, I could point you to one I know is it of order, since you didn't say "working bathroom I'd be allowed to use".

Sure, the license allows it. This implies neither the presence of malice/sketchiness/betrayal of trust, nor the absence of it.

[elsjaako]

The license is an explicit statement about what someone can do with the code.

If we have an explicit agreement that I can mess with you (maybe we like pranks), then pointing you in the opposite direction would not be malicious, it would just be allowed according to the rules we've agreed to.

If you don't want companies taking your code closed source, there's plenty of license options to choose from.

[wredue]

It wasn’t a prank though. If I was walking around shouting “I’ll tell you where the in-order bathrooms are” and then you ask and I point you to not-a-bathroom, that’s what happened here.

Jetbrains have been very adamant that a rust ide was a no-go cause it’s just CLion with the Rust plugin.

[VeejayRampay]

yeah I understand, but if I get into a room where "someone might slap you in this room" is written on the door, I can't call someone slapping me "malicious"

[aaomidi]

It’s MIT licensed. This is why I hate non GPL. But calling it malicious when the license is very clearly pronounced is kinda funny.

[poulpy123]

I never understood the hate for the GPL that protect open source from being privatized.

[panick21_]

What I have a problem with is companies asking for copyright and then changing the license. Looking at you Terraform. But this doesn't seem to be the case here.