I often see Rust mentioned at the same time as MIT-type licenses.

Is it just a cultural thing that people who write Rust dislike Libre copyleft licenses? Or is it baked in to the language somehow?

Edit: It has been pointed out that I meant to say “copyleft”, not “libre”, so edited the title and body likewise.

  • enemenemu@lemm.ee
    0·
    1 month ago

    It’s kind of the default in the docs

    https://doc.rust-lang.org/cargo/reference/manifest.html?highlight=License#the-license-and-license-file-fields

    SPDX license expressions support AND and OR operators to combine multiple licenses.1

      [package]
   # ...
  license = "MIT OR Apache-2.0"

    Using OR indicates the user may choose either license. Using AND indicates the user must comply with both licenses simultaneously. The WITH operator indicates a license with a special exception. Some examples:

    MIT OR Apache-2.0
LGPL-2.1-only AND MIT AND BSD-2-Clause
GPL-2.0-or-later WITH Bison-exception-2.2

    When I started out (I don’t write Rust but other languages), in my first years, I liked gpl and after a couple of years I got to know MIT and I started using that because I thought it is “more free”. I wasn’t aware of the consequences immediately. Once I read the GNU philosophy and started reading more about free software, I started using gplv3 again

      • enemenemu@lemm.ee
        01·
        1 month ago

        You could say that, yes.

        It makes sense to suggest MIT license for a MIT project

        MIT is better than proprietary. MIT does not force you to not make your project free.