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.
This is somewhat concerning, as im a big fan of working for free, as long as it benefits the users. I have also been looking at the EUPL as a happy middleground (it permits static linking, while any changes to the acual code is copyleft). Copyleft is important, and needs to be talked about.
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.
Yes you are correct I mis-used the term. I mean copyleft. So I fixed the post. :)
