5 ms·

Thanks, that's a fair point. I do value user freedom and also come from the R language where GPL rules among packages. It's true though that Rust crate culture

by gerty 9y ago

Thanks, that's a fair point. I do value user freedom and also come from the R language where GPL rules among packages. It's true though that Rust crate culture leans much more to MIT. I think GPL3/MIT as a dual license should be a decent compromise.

int_19h 9y ago
What would be the point of dual licensing GPL3 and MIT? So far as I can tell, MIT is a strict subset of GPL3, and any GPL3 project can use it anyway.
- Santosh83 9y ago
  Releasing it under MIT too would allow it to be used in closed source software projects. GPL does not allow that use case.
  - legulere 9y ago
    I think the point int_19h meant is that you don't need to additionally license software under GPL when you already license it under MIT
cyphar 9y ago
> It's true though that Rust crate culture leans much more to MIT. This is a fairly worrying trend I've noticed in new languages. In general it seems that they are systematically creating ecosystems where copyleft is much less modularised than in other (older) languages. For example, in Go and Rust, LGPL is effectively as strong as GPL because it's non-trivial to make packages/crates replaceable for an end-user with a binary. This results in a general distaste towards LGPL even though it's objectively _the language's fault_ that LGPL isn't as friendly as it is in C. This causes everyone to license things as Apache or MIT (or _maybe_ MPLv2) and as a result the ecosystem of copylefted software is reduced.
- burntsushi 9y ago
  > and as a result the ecosystem of copylefted software is reduced You might be worried, but I'm not. In fact, I'd say that it's a magnificent trend. The less copyleft software, the better.
  - cyphar 9y ago
    > The less copyleft software, the better. All technical discussions will end in license arguments. Put simply, I don't agree (obviously). What I don't understand is this viceral hatred of copyleft to the point where you will make even weak forms of copyleft unfriendly in a language ecosystem. Aren't languages meant to be agnostic to license arguments... At the end of the day, I don't care either way. I make all of my standalone Go and Rust code GPLv3. It's just a shame that people are willing to stunt their own languages just to make a point about licensing.
    - burntsushi 9y ago
      > Put simply, I don't agree (obviously). Right. That's reasonable. The point of my comment was to express disagreement with something that seems obviously true to you. I'm happy about the decrease in copyleft for its own sake. I dislike copyleft because I dislike intellectual property, on which, copyleft relies upon. (There's no need to debate this further. I've done it many times already.) > It's just a shame that people are willing to stunt their own languages just to make a point about licensing. You say "stunt," I say "free." Mischaracterizing this into a group of people indulging in some trivial holy war is absurd. Others are more practical than me. Languages are permissively licensed to drive adoption. Regardless of the theory of copyleft, and regardless of rationality, people are afraid of it and stay away from it.
      - cyphar 9y ago
        > I dislike copyleft because I dislike intellectual property, on which, copyleft relies upon. I promise I won't debate this further, I just wanted to say that I also dislike the concept of intellectual property. The reason I like copyleft is because it takes the draconian machinery of copyright and puts it to work protecting users. Yes, it inconveniences developers, but I think users are more important. You wouldn't prioritise the "right to jerry-rig" of bridge architects over the people who use their bridges. > You say "stunt," I say "free." I'm not sure how making it harder to change out parts of a compiled program makes the language "more free". It's a feature that's missing. > Languages are permissively licensed to drive adoption. I don't disagree with that (though I think compiler _implementations_ should be copylefted). But that's not the point, my point was that if you can't replace parts of a compiled program then LGPL loses its appeal.

by gerty 9y ago

int_19h 9y ago

What would be the point of dual licensing GPL3 and MIT? So far as I can tell, MIT is a strict subset of GPL3, and any GPL3 project can use it anyway.

Santosh83 9y ago
Releasing it under MIT too would allow it to be used in closed source software projects. GPL does not allow that use case.
- legulere 9y ago
  I think the point int_19h meant is that you don't need to additionally license software under GPL when you already license it under MIT

cyphar 9y ago

> It's true though that Rust crate culture leans much more to MIT. This is a fairly worrying trend I've noticed in new languages. In general it seems that they are systematically creating ecosystems where copyleft is much less modularised than in other (older) languages. For example, in Go and Rust, LGPL is effectively as strong as GPL because it's non-trivial to make packages/crates replaceable for an end-user with a binary. This results in a general distaste towards LGPL even though it's objectively _the language's fault_ that LGPL isn't as friendly as it is in C. This causes everyone to license things as Apache or MIT (or _maybe_ MPLv2) and as a result the ecosystem of copylefted software is reduced.

burntsushi 9y ago
> and as a result the ecosystem of copylefted software is reduced You might be worried, but I'm not. In fact, I'd say that it's a magnificent trend. The less copyleft software, the better.
- cyphar 9y ago
  > The less copyleft software, the better. All technical discussions will end in license arguments. Put simply, I don't agree (obviously). What I don't understand is this viceral hatred of copyleft to the point where you will make even weak forms of copyleft unfriendly in a language ecosystem. Aren't languages meant to be agnostic to license arguments... At the end of the day, I don't care either way. I make all of my standalone Go and Rust code GPLv3. It's just a shame that people are willing to stunt their own languages just to make a point about licensing.
  - burntsushi 9y ago
    > Put simply, I don't agree (obviously). Right. That's reasonable. The point of my comment was to express disagreement with something that seems obviously true to you. I'm happy about the decrease in copyleft for its own sake. I dislike copyleft because I dislike intellectual property, on which, copyleft relies upon. (There's no need to debate this further. I've done it many times already.) > It's just a shame that people are willing to stunt their own languages just to make a point about licensing. You say "stunt," I say "free." Mischaracterizing this into a group of people indulging in some trivial holy war is absurd. Others are more practical than me. Languages are permissively licensed to drive adoption. Regardless of the theory of copyleft, and regardless of rationality, people are afraid of it and stay away from it.
    - cyphar 9y ago
      > I dislike copyleft because I dislike intellectual property, on which, copyleft relies upon. I promise I won't debate this further, I just wanted to say that I also dislike the concept of intellectual property. The reason I like copyleft is because it takes the draconian machinery of copyright and puts it to work protecting users. Yes, it inconveniences developers, but I think users are more important. You wouldn't prioritise the "right to jerry-rig" of bridge architects over the people who use their bridges. > You say "stunt," I say "free." I'm not sure how making it harder to change out parts of a compiled program makes the language "more free". It's a feature that's missing. > Languages are permissively licensed to drive adoption. I don't disagree with that (though I think compiler _implementations_ should be copylefted). But that's not the point, my point was that if you can't replace parts of a compiled program then LGPL loses its appeal.