The pest book is finally complete now! (github.com)

submitted 1 day ago by tomtau@aussie.zone to c/rust@lemmy.ml

7 comments fedilink hide all child comments

https://pest.rs/book/examples/awk.html 🎉

I aimed to keep it in line with the "demonstration of the Rust ecosystem" goal, so it can also be a great introduction to Rust for beginners who are looking for a fun project to work on. It's not perfect, but that's part of the fun! It leaves room for potential language extensions (to make the AWK clone more complete) and optimizations up to the reader as a follow-up.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] mactan@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago

every time I see a rust thing I go look and there's another MIT license every time

[-] TehPers@beehaw.org 2 points 1 day ago

I'm not sure why this surprises you. MIT OR Apache is standard for Rust libraries.

Not everyone wants to copyleft their code. People write these libraries with different goals in mind, and sometimes someone wants to use their own library in their own closed source project.

[-] hugh@slrpnk.net 6 points 1 day ago

Then they can release it publicly under the GPL and then privately license it to their employer under hopefully specific terms, ideally for a fee. There’s no good reason to let for-profit companies reap the value out of FOSS.

[-] TehPers@beehaw.org 1 points 1 day ago

Public contribitions would be licensed under GPL and owned by the contributor. They would not be allowed to use those contributions themselves without releasing their product as open source.

[-] moonpiedumplings@programming.dev 1 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

You can do what's called dual licensing, where you make contributes sign an agreement where they give up their code to the org so the org could take it proprietary.

Part of the controversy over Ubuntu's changes to LXD was the change to this dual licensing setup from a permissive license.

[-] TehPers@beehaw.org 1 points 11 hours ago

CLAs are useful but fortunately uncommon. Like you mentioned, the contributor loses control, meaning their code can be relicensed in the future against their will.

There is also something kinda nasty about someone accepting contributions on an AGPL codebase that's also licensed in entirety to them for closed source purposes. Other contributors would not be allowed to use the code in the same way, regardless of their level of contribution, without permission from the owner.

Licenses like MIT/Apache compromise by allowing everyone to contribute and use the code as they please. It's a choice that someone can make, and it's as valid as AGPL or GPLv3 or etc.

Also, yeah the Ubuntu change sounds nasty as well.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2025

27 points (100.0% liked)

Rust Programming

8901 readers

15 users here now

founded 6 years ago

MODERATORS

nutomic@lemmy.ml

Joe@lemmy.ml