UPDATE: I found this issue explaining the relicensing of rust game engine Bevy to MIT + Apache 2.0 dual. Tldr: A lot of rust projects are MIT/Apache 2.0 so using those licenses is good for interoperability and upstreaming. MIT is known and trusted and had great success in projects like Godot.

ORIGINAL POST:

RedoxOS, uutils, zoxide, eza, ripgrep, fd, iced, orbtk,…

It really stands out considering that in FOSS software the GPL or at least the LGPL for toolkits is the most popular license

Most of the programs I listed are replacements for stuff we have in the Linux ecosystem, which are all licensed under the (L)GPL:

uutils, zoxide, eza, ripgrep, fd -> GNU coreutils (GPL)

iced, orbtk -> GTK, QT (LGPL)

RedoxOS -> Linux kernel, most desktop environments like GNOME, KDE etc. all licensed GPL as much as possible

  • Something Burger 🍔@jlai.lu
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    so making a library gpl means users will be forced to make their project GPL too

    So GPL libraries have an incredible advantage.

    • calcopiritus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      GPL libraries have an advantage in their legal power. MIT libraries have an advantage when users have to choose between 2 libraries.

      All other things being equal, users will use more permissive libraries. So unless maintainers put more effort into the GPL, a MIT one will gather more users, which attracts more maintainers, which ends up in more MIT libraries than GPL ones existing.