I am not a programmer, so I personally couldn’t care less about the debate around Rust and C (I do use systemd and I think it’s great), but I really dislike the use of the MIT license in Rust based projects.
American technology corporations have proven themselves to be a negative for society (even if most Americans would considering such thinking Haram).
I’m Canadian and I make my software MIT licensed because it gives others the freedom to do anything with it, I’m kinda confused what you mean by this. Can you elaborate?
I’m okay with them using MIT licensed code, without it the Windows NT network stack would be garbage, juniper switches wouldn’t have changes networking, the ps3 and Nintendo switch would have never happened they way they did
Should they (MS and Apple) been better and more open about it? Sure! But we also benefited by it in a sense. I’ll take the bad with the good here
Haha, nothing against Massachusetts, been there multiple times, nice place. I even like the winters in Massachusetts. :)
I would prefer copyleft. If all open source was BSD/MIT, I don’t think it would be possible to use using something like Linux even for the moderately tech savvy.
I am not a programmer, so I personally couldn’t care less about the debate around Rust and C (I do use systemd and I think it’s great), but I really dislike the use of the MIT license in Rust based projects.
American technology corporations have proven themselves to be a negative for society (even if most Americans would considering such thinking Haram).
I’m Canadian and I make my software MIT licensed because it gives others the freedom to do anything with it, I’m kinda confused what you mean by this. Can you elaborate?
Well it allows rug pulling, you can go closed source or a company could fork and go closed source based on your work
Yeah, that’s part of the license and what made FreeBSD great
Fine if you’re fine with that 🌞 Others might dislike it because of that
Sure, use GPL then. The libraries I share won’t get any use if they aren’t MIT
Perhaps LGPL?
Every project has it’s requirements and every developer has opinions and ethics
If LGPL works for you and your project then LGPL works. Why not?
The long version of my comment is: If the reason is copyleft licenses, then maybe the LGPL is somewhat of a middle-ground?
I prefer copyleft open source (i.g. GPL).
That’s fair, but what did you mean by this part:
I was indirectly refering to the use of BSD code by Apple and Microsoft.
I’m okay with them using MIT licensed code, without it the Windows NT network stack would be garbage, juniper switches wouldn’t have changes networking, the ps3 and Nintendo switch would have never happened they way they did
Should they (MS and Apple) been better and more open about it? Sure! But we also benefited by it in a sense. I’ll take the bad with the good here
(Not trying to tell you that you’re wrong ftr)
That’s fair.
For what it’s worth I used to take a much more middle of the road position, but the last ~10 years have made me re-evaluate my position.
You mean as in copyleft versus permissive licenses, or because it has Massachusetts in the name, or some specifics? 😉
Haha, nothing against Massachusetts, been there multiple times, nice place. I even like the winters in Massachusetts. :)
I would prefer copyleft. If all open source was BSD/MIT, I don’t think it would be possible to use using something like Linux even for the moderately tech savvy.