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
[-] 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