Ok, this makes me feel better about the situation.
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Corey Richardson <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Josh Leverette <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I really don't think it's just him that the licensing terms aren't > suitable > > for. By using MPS, every single line of Rust code ever written would be > > freely requestable by any and every individual unless the company writing > > the code took care to relicense MPS or to destroy any connection MPS has > to > > their code. > > > > This is no way to make a new language accepted by the community, > especially > > not a FOSS community. If MPS would be happy to relicense under the MIT > for > > the whole of the FOSS community, I'm sure we would get along just fine, > or, > > if Rust were to drop MPS... but I don't see any way for Rust to coexist > with > > MPS with its current license. > > > > So yes, an investigation into this possibility is fine, but switching to > it > > should wait until the license is appropriate, in my personal opinion. No > > offense to MPS. > > > > This was already taken into consideration, upstream is amenable to > relicensing, and have done so in the past. If a licensing agreement > can't be worked out, it won't be used. > -- Sincerely, Josh
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
