On 07/02/2014 03:16 AM, Corey Richardson wrote:
Complaining about something I don't like:
Due to the choice of MPLv2, this won't be usable in the wider Rust
ecosystem, which is MIT/ASL2 focused. In particular, section 3.2(a)
requires that any distribution in "Executable Form" carry a notice
about how to acquire the source code of zmq.rs. This is not
unworkable, but it is something we have avoided so far in the
community.
I should note that this is not a universally held opinion in the Rust
community. While it is true that many/most current Rust projects mimic
the license of `rustc` itself, there's nothing in Rust as a language
that precludes or encourages the use of any particular license. The
mentioned 'avoidance' is likely a consequence of the people just
preferring those licenses (i.e. they'd use them for their non-Rust
projects as well) rather than Rust being against the spirit of
attribution, share-alike, copyleft etc per se.
Personally, I would encourage Free Rust software just like I would
encourage it in any other language. You shouldn't feel like you need to
compromise on your moral principles (or whatever else you consult when
choosing a license) to contribute to Rust's success.
-SL
_______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
