• TehPers@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    12 hours ago

    Yes, that’s correct. Whenever you write something in Rust, the license is automatically permissive. In fact, both US and EU copyright law automatically grant an irrevocable, perpetual license to use any and all Rust code that has ever been written for any purpose at all, including for commercial purpose, unless the code was written by a corporation.


    Or, you know, you could just:

    [package]
    license = "GPL-3.0-only"
    
    • badmin@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      11 hours ago

      To be fair, projects implemented in Rust and adopting the GPL/AGPL are just not that notable.

      I mean, you can’t expect people here to have heard of, let’s say, that thing called Lemmy.

    • Venia Silente@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Now that would be a horror story. Then again, it’s one of the reasons why I’m asking. Rust fame is just too coincidental with a number of things to not be suspicious. There was a whole thing in C++ (dunno if it’s still ongoing) about the “memory safety” meme, as well.

      • vas@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 hours ago

        I feel ya. To me, it’s really sad that some new projects now use licenses that are really good for businesses but do not even protect the projects themselves. I’d rather live in a world where GPL share would increase. (Instead, GPL grows, but its share is diminishing.) All my projects so far are GPL/AGPL.

        At the same time, Rust being picked for Linux has really nothing to do with the license. It’s just what you said - a coincidence. The actual choice is made because of the language itself. It’s a great language BTW.