See also the discussion on IRC: https://botbot.me/mozilla/rust/2014-07-02/?msg=17359232&page=22
It wasn't my intention to discourage using any particular license, but to raise its requirements if they weren't consciously chosen. On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 12:33 PM, SiegeLordEx <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -- http://octayn.net/ _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
