A few people pointed out that many rust projects were MIT licensed and since then I indeed have seen MIT licensed projects everywhere in Rust. Then I found the link of this post and it looks like MIT was by far the most popular license in all of opensource in 2023.

Any ideas why?

  • onlinepersonaOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    Thank you. That would explain why corporations use it (and the Apache license), however my guess is that most opensource projects aren’t corporate. Do you maybe have a guess why non-corporations use MIT?

    Anti Commercial-AI license

    • hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      Do you maybe have a guess why non-corporations use MIT?

      “Here’s my project do what you want, or don’t, with it I don’t care”

      • vala@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        Relicense it as GPL and see how little they care what you do with it.

        • hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          What a stupid argument, that’s literally only thing the license asks, is to keep the original license and not sue them because you shot at your own dick.

          It doesn’t change in any way or form how you can use the software though

          • bitfucker
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 days ago

            Isn’t it to keep the copyright notice and not the license itself? I.e, you may redistribute it with a different license term and conditions but the copyright notice must be retained. I don’t know how different it is tho in legal speak. Maybe they are equivalent.

      • Caveman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 days ago

        One caveat is that if you fork and release it you have to release it under the same license.

        • bitfucker
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          No.

          MIT : “Here is my project. Do whatever, I don’t care. Just put my name in a credit somewhere.”

          GPL (assuming FSF stance on linking is used) : “Here is my project. Oh, you want to use my project and distribute your project that uses my project? Make your whole project open source too.”

          BSD-3 : “Here is my project. Credit me and do whatever but, don’t use my name to promote your usage.”

          And many more nuances on other licenses like patents and whatnot. The problem is, the average person does not care to enforce it.

        • athairmor@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          I don’t think that’s what they’re saying.

          MIT license is more permissive than other open source licenses. That’s intentional. The authors want anyone to use their code anyway they like—open, closed, whatever.

        • hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          No, but they want to have the most permissive license so that anyone with interest in it can take and use it, without having to worry about licenses.

    • nous
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      4 days ago

      You would be surprised. A lot are written by people as part of their job or so they can use them for their job or being sponsored by a company to do the work. The people with the most time to contribute library code to rust are being paid to do it in one form or another.

    • bluGill@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      If you want to spread rust corporations using it is part of spreading.

        • bluGill@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          Part of a useful language is a library of various utilites. If the library is behind a license you cannot accept the library may as well not exist - and thus the language is less useful.