Replies: 3 comments
-
|
@Snowiiii what do yoy think? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
That's not exactly what the official Rust Licenses page reads:
However, this is neither here nor there - software written in Rust (e.g. Pumpkin) doesn't have anything to do with Rust ecosystem per se - you aren't contributing to Rust (the programming language). If, however, you were merely thinking of other 3rd-party software written in Rust, then the MIT license gives you a broader interoperability than Apache 2.0, anyway... ... s clearly shown in this counter-argument:
Apache 2.0 is compatible with GPLv3, though. Either way, KISS and use MIT license :^) |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Sounds like you think the Compiler somehow packages the license inside the Compiler binary or something like that. Well this is not the case and licenses are also pretty important and not any kind of boilerplate |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I've searched existing issues and couldn't find a duplicate.
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
I want to relicense Pumpkin under the "dual MIT / Apache-2.0 license". This allows users to select either license according to their own preferences. There are Very Good Reasons for this (see down).
1 The MIT license (arguably) requires binaries to reproduce countless copies of the same license boilerplate for every MIT library in use.
2 The Apache-2.0 license has protections from patent trolls and an explicit contribution licensing clause.
3 The Rust ecosystem is largely Apache-2.0. Being available under that license is good for interoperation and opens the doors to upstreaming pupmkin code into other projects.
4 The Apache license is incompatible with GPLv2, but MIT is compatible.
Describe the solution you'd like
Relicense project
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions