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.

  • irotsoma@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    3·
    4 days ago

    I think its just that the language having built in licensing is a newer concept as opposed to just having a companion document. And MIT and Apache are the licenses the pieces of the language is licensed under, so they made those default. That way it’s a conscious decision to make it more restrictive.

    • someOPEnglish
      1·
      3 days ago

      built in licensing

      how’s it built in?

      • irotsoma@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        3·
        3 days ago

        Rust crates manifest file requires a license be set to be hosted on crates.io and the example manifest file uses:

        [package] 
license = "MIT OR Apache-2.0"

        Something like the Java’s jar manifest doesn’t have a predefined license property for interpreters to parse. Maven has a property, but it’s not required.