Which is very frustrating, because retiring C & C++ is long overdue IMO, but for reasons unknown to me, the Rust community is strongly against copyleft licensing.
Wouldn’t surprise if Creative Commons had something to do with this. The copyleft licenses of it, of anything more restrictive basically than MIT and “attribution”, are listed as “restrictive” and “not open” or something. I think coupled with the complicated legal language versus “idk, whatever man” doesn’t help for lots of new projects.
That said… Most of the stuff I’ve done has been so “idk, man, I made a thing for me and figured others might benefit” that I just gave it the MIT license for that reason. And it may just be as simple as that reasoning.
Suddenly it makes sense
Which is very frustrating, because retiring C & C++ is long overdue IMO, but for reasons unknown to me, the Rust community is strongly against copyleft licensing.
Wouldn’t surprise if Creative Commons had something to do with this. The copyleft licenses of it, of anything more restrictive basically than MIT and “attribution”, are listed as “restrictive” and “not open” or something. I think coupled with the complicated legal language versus “idk, whatever man” doesn’t help for lots of new projects.
That said… Most of the stuff I’ve done has been so “idk, man, I made a thing for me and figured others might benefit” that I just gave it the MIT license for that reason. And it may just be as simple as that reasoning.
Remember when under biden they passed this memory safety thingy? Which it implicitly, discreetly advocated for the use of rust nonetheless
Rust might be a psyop hahaha