this post was submitted on 25 May 2025
60 points (92.9% liked)

Rust

7063 readers
15 users here now

Welcome to the Rust community! This is a place to discuss about the Rust programming language.

Wormhole

[email protected]

Credits

  • The icon is a modified version of the official rust logo (changing the colors to a gradient and black background)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

If the other projects are licensed with a GPL, there is no issue doing any of these things (except using them for proprietary purposes later), which is the point. If you licensed your project incorrectly, that isn't the GPL-licensed project's fault.

[–] taladar 5 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

If you licensed your project incorrectly

If you think other people disagreeing with you on how to license their own work is "incorrect" maybe you are the one not really in favor of freedom.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

GPL is more freedom for users and developers. MIT is less freedom for users because it grants more "freedom" for some company to exploit the developer's labor by taking it to make something proprietary with it.

If you want to use GPL code, pushover licenses are incorrect because they protect the user and developer from this nonsense.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago

I always see people with the argument that the developer labour is somehow being exploited. But have you never thought that maybe, just maybe, the person in question does not care? He just wanted to publish his creation and be done with it. He does not care if people are using it. That's my case. I don't care if people want to use my piece of cryptographic library. Just be aware that I am just some random dude, providing no support nor warranty. I make the library for my use cases and it works fine.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)