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.

  • Arthur Besse@lemmy.mlEnglish
    15·
    6 days ago

    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 licenses?

    The word “libre” in the context of licensing exists to clarify the ambiguity of the word “free”, to emphasize that it means “free as in freedom” rather than “free as in beer” (aka no cost, or gratis) as the FSF explains here.

    The MIT license is a “libre” license, because it does meet the Free Software Definition.

    I think the word you are looking for here is copyleft: the MIT license is a permissive license, meaning it is not a copyleft license.

    I don’t know enough about the Rust community to say why, but from a distance my impression is that yes they do appear to have a cultural preference for permissive licenses.

    • TheChickenOfDoom@lemm.eeEnglish
      2·
      5 days ago

      The MIT license is a “libre” license, because it does meet the Free Software Definition.

      Nope. It allows someone to use code without sharing the changes of that code. It enables non-free software creators like Microsoft to take the code, use it however they like, and not have to share back. This is what Free Software prevents.

      Tired of people calling things like MIT and *BSD true libre/Free Software. They’re basically one step away from no license at all.

      • Arthur Besse@lemmy.mlEnglish
        2·
        5 days ago

        Nope.

        Nope, it is.

        It allows someone to use code without sharing the changes of that code. It enables non-free software creators like Microsoft to take the code, use it however they like, and not have to share back.

        This is correct; it is a permissive license.

        This is what Free Software prevents.

        No, that is what copyleft (aims to) prevent.

        Tired of people calling things like MIT and *BSD true libre/Free Software.

        The no True Scotsman fallacy requires a lack of authority about what what constitutes “true” - but in the case of Free/Libre software, we have one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition

        If you look at this license list (maintained by the Free Software Foundation’s Licensing and Compliance Lab) you’ll see that they classify many non-copyleft licenses as “permissive free software licenses”.

        They’re basically one step away from no license at all.

        Under the Berne Convention of 1886, everything is copyrighted by default, so “no license at all” means that nobody has permission to redistribute it :)

        The differences between permissive free software licenses and CC0 or a simple declaration that something is “dedicated to the public domain” are subtle and it’s easy to see them as irrelevant, but the choice of license does have consequences.

        The FSF recommends that people who want to use a permissive license choose Apache 2.0 “for substantial programs” because of its clause which “prevents patent treachery”, while noting that that clause makes it incompatible with GPLv2. For “simple programs” when the author wants a permissive license, FSF recommends the Expat license (aka the MIT license).

        It is noteworthy that the latter is compatible with GPLv2; MIT-licensed programs can be included in a GPLv2-only work (like the Linux kernel) while Apache 2.0-licensed programs cannot. (GPLv3 is more accommodating and allows patent-related additional restrictions to be applied, so it is compatible with Apache 2.0.)