| I think you missed my point. Say you have an open-source project with a single owner, who makes all the decisions about it, and is willing to totally change it around to suit his needs. Would you stake your business on use of that open-source project? Only to the extent that you're sure your needs align with the project owner's. Unless, of course, you're planning to fork anyway. That's where NaCl is at the moment. It's also where Rust is, even more than NaCl. Anyone who is not in the business of working on Servo is nuts if they're relying on Rust for anything important, so far. In my opinion. So yes, from my point of view Rust is definitely proprietary to Mozilla at the moment, and asking anyone else to use it (again for anything important, not just experiments) is just a recipe for disaster. As far as NaCl adoption, Apple and Microsoft have their own reasons for not adopting it, for sure. But this subthread is about Mozilla's reasons, which certainly don't match those of Apple and Microsoft. |
"Proprietary software or closed source software is computer software licensed under exclusive legal right of the copyright holder.[1] The licensee is given the right to use the software under certain conditions, while restricted from other uses, such as modification, further distribution, or reverse engineering"
Muddying the waters by referring to open source software as proprietary software does not help. And I am sure the folks at Mozilla, being open source advocates themselves, would tell you the same thing.
Reminds me of an ex-boss (from a long time ago) who referred to all open source software as "freeware." Hey guys, the 1990s called, they want their bad hacker movies and confusion about the software business back.