>oyy vey goy you can't be using that old software written in C licensed under the GPL... you have to move to this new rust version for (((security))) reasons.. of course it's licensed (((MIT))) you see...
So this is just a psyop to get people to move off GPL software and onto jewish licenses?

>>105964345 (OP)
It's more about making hardware obsolete for no reason. Since any PC built in the last 20 years can run even today's AAA games. But if you start requiring Rust for simple shit like a log-in screen you instantly make all those old machines and non-modern ISAs 'obsolete'.

>>105964345 (OP)
Fork the MIT repo and license it yourself under GPL.
They can't actually do anything to you if you do this. The legal consequences of software licensing are NOT REAL!

>>105964353
you can't relicense work that is not yours, you can only use it under the license provided

>>105964345 (OP)
Don't blame Rust for GPL's loss of popularity.

>>105964345 (OP)
>C is GPL and Rust is MIT and there was never non-GPL coreutils written in C and (((they))) are going to add a killer feature to "ls" and lock us all out of it and it's all a psyop and it's all Rust's fault OKAY

>>105964345 (OP)
Yes, rust (and c2rust) are primarily just vehicles to launder gpl code, replace the license, and then steal/proprietarize it. Same with AI.
The fact that these are happening at the same time smells like insane desperation.

>>105964345 (OP)
>GPL
commie license

>>105964709
Actually I can do whatever the fuck I want and no one can do anything about it.

>>105964345 (OP)
C is the symbol of Free Software. Corpo hates it.

>>105964345 (OP)
yes corporations hate GPL and AGPL

>>105964709
The MIT license gives you the right to use software, read its source code, and copy it as you see fit, provided you maintain the copyright notice. When you copy it, as long as the terms of the MIT license are followed (i.e. by maintaining the copyright notice), you can provide your own copy under a different license.

Licenses whose terms would allow you to re-license under the GPL are referred to as "GPL compatible". MIT, BSD, and Apache are all licenses that allow you to release under the more restrictive GPL, which itself actually does require you to use the license provided on any copies you release.

>>105965241
So what? They just look at the source code and rewrite it themselves.