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.

  • enemenemu@lemm.ee
    61·
    5 days ago

    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.

    • davel [he/him]@lemmy.mlEnglish
      8·
      5 days ago

      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.

      • enemenemu@lemm.ee
        6·
        5 days 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

      • enemenemu@lemm.ee
        4·
        5 days 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.