Add myself to the authors and put license headers where they're missing #248
Conversation
|
The use of LGPL for this crate code worries me though. The fact that crates other than rustc libs are linked to the applications statically, likely causes the GPL to infect the whole finished application, which probably is not the intended outcome. Right now it seems to me that to avoid this problem Rust bindings could be licensed under MIT/BSD/whatever but make it clear that the resulting application will link to an LGPL library. |
Add myself to the authors and put license headers where they're missing
|
You're not the first one who talk to me about this. I had the same comment on the IRC two days ago. I'm not confident with licenses at all but I did speak about it with @jeremyletang (normally, he's available again from the next week). I proposed to him the MIT license but it didn't go any further. So yes, a change in the license will occur very soon. |
|
As there aren't a lot of authors the license change seems possible. I wonder if Mozilla legal could be persuaded to give their opinion on the issue of LGPL and Rust crates. :) |
|
I didn't think about that... Well, maybe. Any tips for asking them this (and contacting them too by the way) ? |
|
I doubt that they'll respond in a meaningful way to a direct inquiry. It might be worthwhile to raise the question on discuss or reddit and if a significant number of people show interest, the Rust developers might feel compelled to get some info out of Mozilla (or at least comment on feasibility of dynamic linking some crates which could make this a moot point). |
|
I opened a topic in reddit here. |
No description provided.