48
submitted 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) by some@programming.dev to c/opensource@lemmy.ml

I often see Rust mentioned at the same time as MIT-type licenses.

Is it just a cultural thing that people who write Rust dislike ~~Libre~~ copyleft licenses? Or is it baked in to the language somehow?

Edit: It has been pointed out that I meant to say "copyleft", not "libre", so edited the title and body likewise.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] wer2@lemm.ee 4 points 5 days ago

To add a couple of issues with Dynamic Libraries, and why someone would choose Static Libraries:

  • The dynamic library being updated can break a program due to a change in the library. Think a math call goes from divide(a,b) to divide(a,b, precision), so now the old call doesn't exist.
  • Some languages don't have a "stable" way to talk to itself. This means that if you have a program and library compiled with compiler version A, then later compile an update to the library with compiler version B, the program won't know how to talk to the library correctly, even though the call is still there.

Like a lot of things, there are tradeoffs, and there is no universal correct choice.

[-] Hugin@lemmy.world 4 points 5 days ago

Agreed. I wasn't trying to say they are always better just explain the difference.

I almost exclusivity use Linux and it handles this great. .so libraries are stored with a version number and a link to the latest. So math3.so and math4.so with math.so being a link to math4.so. that way if needed I can set a program to use math3.so and keep everything else on the latest version.

this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2025
48 points (92.9% liked)

Open Source

35359 readers
226 users here now

All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!

Useful Links

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS