We’ve just re-introduced a convention path à la FHS. 🫠
If you’ve been following me for a while, you probably know that I occasionally use my home lab to help friends out when they have failed components and can’t afford to have a “real” IC FA workup done.。新收录的资料对此有专业解读
曝 vivo X300 Ultra 全球首发索尼 2 亿像素 LYT-901。新收录的资料对此有专业解读
To put all this in the right context, let’s zoom in on the copyright's actual perimeters: the law says you must not copy “protected expressions”. In the case of the software, a protected expression is the code as it is, with the same structure, variables, functions, exact mechanics of how specific things are done, unless they are known algorithms (standard quicksort or a binary search can be implemented in a very similar way and they will not be a violation). The problem is when the business logic of the programs matches perfectly, almost line by line, the original implementation. Otherwise, the copy is lawful and must not obey the original license, as long as it is pretty clear that the code is doing something similar but with code that is not cut & pasted or mechanically translated to some other language, or aesthetically modified just to look a bit different (look: this is exactly the kind of bad-faith maneuver a court will try to identify). I have the feeling that every competent programmer reading this post perfectly knows what a *reimplementation* is and how it looks. There will be inevitable similarities, but the code will be clearly not copied. If this is the legal setup, why do people care about clean room implementations? Well, the reality is: it is just an optimization in case of litigation, it makes it simpler to win in court, but being exposed to the original source code of some program, if the exposition is only used to gain knowledge about the ideas and behavior, is fine. Besides, we are all happy to have Linux today, and the GNU user space, together with many other open source projects that followed a similar path. I believe rules must be applied both when we agree with their ends, and when we don’t.
This still requires that you to manually track which parts bindgen thinks are JS-imports and which it thinks are Rust-exports, but with our naming convention it’s pretty clear what’s happening. The conversion isn’t free, but (IMO) it makes your interfaces significantly more flexible and legible.