#Poll specifically for programmers who work on open source projects:
When you add a new dependency to a project, do you check the license(s) for compatibility with the license(s) of the project you're working on?
@aeva@mastodon.gamedev.place i license everything under GPL/AGPL, so everything in the rust ecosystem should be compatible
@mia @aeva @Parienve There are concerns about combining GPL/LGPL code licensed under version 2 ONLY (i.e. without “or, at your option, any later version”) with licenses that include an explicit patent grant, including Apache-2.0 and version 3 of the GPL family. There are various mitigations to this problem, and fortunately GPL-2.0-only is relatively rare (but Git and the Linux kernel are important examples).
Examples of crates with noncommercial licenses:
`mulm` - Prosperity Public License.
`rustic-zen` - CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0
`ur-script` - CC-BY-NC-4.0
Side note: be careful about confusing the Boost Software License (BSL), which is FOSS, with the Business Source License, which is not. Both licenses see use on crates.io
@Parienve@qoto.org @aeva@mastodon.gamedev.place interesting crates, never heard of them specifically but i guess i probably should run a dep scanner at some point
and yeah it sucks that the copro license ends up acronymed the same as the boost license
@Parienve@qoto.org @aeva@mastodon.gamedev.place could you provide examples of crates that use noncommercial licenses? i don't believe i've seen that before (maybe BSL?)
i use AGPL 3.0 most of the time - would that be okay for the "compatibility issues" or was it issues when depending on GPL 2.0 code?
don't know anything about the middle point, definitely need to read more about LGPL since i still don't understand the difference there