Re: Libvirt Rust bindings could use some work
On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 11:53 AM Wim de With <wf(a)dewith.io> 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!