4 ms·

This is super exciting and awesome. I worked with the html! macro from yew, https://github.com/DenisKolodin/yew https://github.com/DenisKolodin/yew, and it had

This is super exciting and awesome. I worked with the html! macro from yew, https://github.com/DenisKolodin/yew https://github.com/DenisKolodin/yew, and it had some quirks. Assuming yew hasn’t improved that macro since I used it (5 months back), this looks significantly better in almost every way. It would be very cool to see this become the main library for html generation in Rust (and WASM?). I’ve been following the posts about this library’s development, fun to see it discussed here. But I have to ask, will the choice of the MPL as the license have any effect on its potential adoption? Yew is Apache/MIT, matching Rust and much of the ecosystem, for context.

drostie 8y ago
It's possible but unlikely. MPL, for folks who aren't aware, is a successor to the CDDL seen in Solaris etc. and is a per-file copyleft, thus having a nicer legal structure while getting the same rough benefits of GPL or at least LGPL. The idea is “any modifications to this file must also be open-sourced under MPL, but you can package this file with proprietary other files that are not MPL and integrate them into a larger proprietary thing as long as your modifications to this file alone are open-sourced.” The goal is to protect weakly from Microsoft-esque “embrace, extend, extinguish” as GPL does but enable commercial integration the way BSD does. In practice nobody seems to be all that pissed at Mozilla because of their license; the MPLv2 added GPL compatibility so the GPLers are mostly able to use MPL software and it gives a nod towards the stronger copyleft they like; commercial applications which just use the software as a library don't mind.
- jdub 8y ago
  Minor historical nitpick: The CDDL was based on the MPL. There used to be a lot of licenses that were pretty much the MPL with the names changed.
  - drostie 8y ago
    Thanks, I appreciate the correction!

drostie 8y ago

It's possible but unlikely. MPL, for folks who aren't aware, is a successor to the CDDL seen in Solaris etc. and is a per-file copyleft, thus having a nicer legal structure while getting the same rough benefits of GPL or at least LGPL. The idea is “any modifications to this file must also be open-sourced under MPL, but you can package this file with proprietary other files that are not MPL and integrate them into a larger proprietary thing as long as your modifications to this file alone are open-sourced.” The goal is to protect weakly from Microsoft-esque “embrace, extend, extinguish” as GPL does but enable commercial integration the way BSD does. In practice nobody seems to be all that pissed at Mozilla because of their license; the MPLv2 added GPL compatibility so the GPLers are mostly able to use MPL software and it gives a nod towards the stronger copyleft they like; commercial applications which just use the software as a library don't mind.

jdub 8y ago
Minor historical nitpick: The CDDL was based on the MPL. There used to be a lot of licenses that were pretty much the MPL with the names changed.
- drostie 8y ago
  Thanks, I appreciate the correction!