3 ms·

> For the record, the rust community has mostly settled around dual-licensing under MIT/Apache for what you can call "foundational" crates ("libraries") That's

> For the record, the rust community has mostly settled around dual-licensing under MIT/Apache for what you can call "foundational" crates ("libraries") That's just your opinion, there's no such thing as a blessed license scheme by the community. GPL is a perfectly valid choice if you feel like it

ComputerGuru 5y ago
> That's just your opinion, there's no such thing as a blessed license scheme by the community. GPL is a perfectly valid choice if you feel like it I didn't state an "opinion." I'm stating an observable fact. And don't paraphrase what I said - my words are right there and you don't need to play games with what I said or didn't say: I never said anything was "blessed," I merely pointed out that by and large, the Rust community has - whether you like it or not - mostly settled on MIT/Apache 2.0 (as in, the de facto license). I even couched my statement very carefully as referring to "foundational" crates, even though - as a matter of fact - it applies to the majority of published open source crates regardless of whether or not you consider them "foundational." You can see for yourself with this breakdown of crates on crates.io by license (scroll all the way to the right): https://gist.github.com/passcod/2e1983ce415b32bdf3a0 https://gist.github.com/passcod/2e1983ce415b32bdf3a0 Different languages/communities built around common languages or frameworks tend to "settle" (there's that word again) on different licenses. These are typically (but not necessarily) the licenses that the language/framework itself is licensed under. In rust's case, the majority of what you might consider "foundational" crates - i.e. crates that are intended for consumption by the broader community to build the basis of other projects in the same way that you would depend on the standard library itself, be they runtimes, util libraries, etc. have, by and large, accepted either MIT or dual-licensed MIT/Apache2.0 as the default to start with, unless there's a compelling reason (such as starting a business around it!) to do otherwise. There's nothing wrong with picking a different license, it's just less likely for the community to converge around a more strictly licensed option. That's just the way the world works.

ComputerGuru 5y ago

> That's just your opinion, there's no such thing as a blessed license scheme by the community. GPL is a perfectly valid choice if you feel like it I didn't state an "opinion." I'm stating an observable fact. And don't paraphrase what I said - my words are right there and you don't need to play games with what I said or didn't say: I never said anything was "blessed," I merely pointed out that by and large, the Rust community has - whether you like it or not - mostly settled on MIT/Apache 2.0 (as in, the de facto license). I even couched my statement very carefully as referring to "foundational" crates, even though - as a matter of fact - it applies to the majority of published open source crates regardless of whether or not you consider them "foundational." You can see for yourself with this breakdown of crates on crates.io by license (scroll all the way to the right): https://gist.github.com/passcod/2e1983ce415b32bdf3a0 https://gist.github.com/passcod/2e1983ce415b32bdf3a0 Different languages/communities built around common languages or frameworks tend to "settle" (there's that word again) on different licenses. These are typically (but not necessarily) the licenses that the language/framework itself is licensed under. In rust's case, the majority of what you might consider "foundational" crates - i.e. crates that are intended for consumption by the broader community to build the basis of other projects in the same way that you would depend on the standard library itself, be they runtimes, util libraries, etc. have, by and large, accepted either MIT or dual-licensed MIT/Apache2.0 as the default to start with, unless there's a compelling reason (such as starting a business around it!) to do otherwise. There's nothing wrong with picking a different license, it's just less likely for the community to converge around a more strictly licensed option. That's just the way the world works.