New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Double license under MPL 2 and LGPL 3 #23
Comments
Apache-2/MIT is more popular in the Rust ecosystem, but it's fine if you prefer MPL. I hereby consent to the relicensing of my contribution to this repository under LGPL 3 and MPL 2.0. |
Sure, I consent to licensing under LGPL 3 and MPL 2.0 as well. |
Makes sense. I hereby consent to the relicensing of my contribution to this repository under LGPL 3 and MPL 2.0. |
I am agreed with relicensing of my contribution too. |
I consent to licensing under LGPL 3 and MPL 2.0 as well. |
This crate is now licensed under both the LGPL 3 and the MPL 2.0, at user's opinion |
I may be wrong because I relied on ChatGPT to check this out for me (let me know if you know better), but it seems that both LGPL 3 and MPL 2.0, require that we allow the user to modify and replace the library as they see fit. This is of course a little more problematic to comply with when using a single executable (Rust). This may require hacks to turns the library into a dynamically linked one or provide the full source code to the user in order for them to compile the project themselves. This basically means that if you try to use this library in a closed-source project in Rust, you must hack into a dynamically link solution (such as |
That's true for LGPL, but not for MPL. From https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/FAQ/:
From what I've seen, ChatGPT often gives wrong, but confident-sounding answers, so one should be a little discerning when applying its advice. You can work see in the issue description at the top that the motivation for relicensing to MPL 2.0 was allowing static linking in the way you describe. |
Yeah, I figured this might be a mistake. Thanks for the quick answer. I had to make sure that ChatGPT was the one that is wrong and not the OP because of the OP intend and for me to consider the crate. |
Dear contributors,
Because of how Cargo works, it is currently easier to statically link external crates.
The GNU LGPL license, however, impose to link dynamically.
I am opening this issue to get your consent about double licensing this crate under both the LGPL and the MPL.
The Mozilla Public License is still a weak copyleft license, similar to the LGPL, but allowing static linking to software with a different license.
@lnicola @tsionyx @BourgondAries @ocecaco @petr-tik
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: