On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 11:53 AM Wim de With <wf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Since the intent of libvirt using LGPL was explicitly to allow non-GPL > > compatible applications to use libvirt, it is a mistake to be using > > a license that breaks this ability for Rust. > > > > In Golang we've used MIT license > > > > For Rust we should aim for whatever is most appropriate - MIT or BSD > > or Apache - I'm not familiar with which is dominant in the Rust world. > > Apache and MIT or even dual licensing of both are the most common. > The official API guidelines recommend dual licensing under Apache and > MIT. > I would prefer we didn't repeat that dumb advice in libvirt-rs. Just go with Apache-2.0 if we want a permissively licensed crate. I would suggest MPL-2.0 for libvirt-rs, though. That allows proprietary linking but maintains that each file that makes up the crate *must* remain FOSS, and is compatible with GNU licenses. It's static-link compatible copyleft, basically. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
