Linux
Welcome to c/linux!
Welcome to our thriving Linux community! Whether you're a seasoned Linux enthusiast or just starting your journey, we're excited to have you here. Explore, learn, and collaborate with like-minded individuals who share a passion for open-source software and the endless possibilities it offers. Together, let's dive into the world of Linux and embrace the power of freedom, customization, and innovation. Enjoy your stay and feel free to join the vibrant discussions that await you!
Rules:
-
Stay on topic: Posts and discussions should be related to Linux, open source software, and related technologies.
-
Be respectful: Treat fellow community members with respect and courtesy.
-
Quality over quantity: Share informative and thought-provoking content.
-
No spam or self-promotion: Avoid excessive self-promotion or spamming.
-
No NSFW adult content
-
Follow general lemmy guidelines.
view the rest of the comments
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?
If I understand LGPL correctly, any change would require the modified code to be open sourced and available, where as with MIT the developer is free to modify the code without requiring publishing it?
I want people to use my code in their games so they can get an idea to code faster, I feel like LGPL would be a limiting factor imo
Yes, if you change LGPL code you're required to redistribute its source.
The only advantage i see in the "L" is that you can have your MIT code link with LGPL libraries without hassle and they won't "contaminate" each other.
OTOH if you want people to screw around with your code unhindered then yeah, MIT or similar.
I am not a lawyer.
I love this stuff, I’m gonna stick with MIT for myself but I love that there are so many options.
No, you can change LGPL code all you want without distributing the source, so long as you don't convey it (either in source or non-source form) to any other parties. The point is to guarantee that anyone receiving the code in any form has the same freedoms that you had when receiving it.
There are a lot of misconceptions floating around regarding these licenses; it's really worth reading and trying to understand them even if you're not a lawyer. The FAQ might help:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-3.0.html
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html
That's obvious and goes without saying, unless you're implying whenever i change LGPL code uncle Sam is watching my keystrokes in my LAN?
I quoted the FAQ in one of my replies.
Even if you think so, I hope you will consider revising your earlier comment. As written, it is incorrect, leading uninformed readers to believe something that simply is not true.
Edit: In my experience, license terms are seldom obvious, and never go without saying.