Open Source

35430 readers

467 users here now

All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!

Useful Links

Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by some to c/[email protected]

36 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I often see Rust mentioned at the same time as MIT-type licenses.

Is it just a cultural thing that people who write Rust dislike ~~Libre~~ copyleft licenses? Or is it baked in to the language somehow?

Edit: It has been pointed out that I meant to say "copyleft", not "libre", so edited the title and body likewise.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

You could say that, yes.

It makes sense to suggest MIT license for a MIT project

MIT is better than proprietary. MIT does not force you to not make your project free.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

MIT does not force you to not make your project free.

Given the double negative and the ambiguity of “free,” I don’t know what you’re trying to say here.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago

You are allowed to license your code change under gpl, you do not have to use MIT just because the package author uses MIT. You can use GPL.

You can also use MIT or no license at all. it does not force you to use MIT

[–] some 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Why is it an MIT project in the first place?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I am no dev of rust.

My guess:

they didn't want to scare anyone.
They really think that MIT is free and that anyone shall do with it whatever they like. They are not afraid that someone takes the rust code base and produces a proprietary fork and make money from it.