Asterinas
asterinas.github.io

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.

  • qaz@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    6 months ago

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

    1. 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.

    2. 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?

    • toothbrush@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      0·
      6 months ago

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

      • Michael Murphy (S76)@lemmy.worldEnglish
        01·
        5 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.