Different license?

[JonathanWilbur]

It seems that the choice of using the Mozilla Public License as the license for this library was a very deliberate choice, but some projects I am working on are proprietary and need the smart string type in almost every file, meaning (as I understand it) that I would have to make these projects (almost completely) open source. I would love to use this library, but I absolutely cannot because of the licensing.

Could I talk you into re-licensing it under MIT terms or something similar?

[marshallpierce]

@JonathanWilbur I think MPL only means that you need to provide access to this library's source (i.e. run a mirror of it). However, that is still fairly burdensome, as it means that we need to mirror the code and update that mirror as the dependency version changes, etc.

The author is of course free to use any license, but if the intent is to have the software used without unduly inhibiting its users, a less challenging license like Apache 2, MIT, COIL, etc would be greatly appreciated.

[jangorecki]

Are you planning to simply use the crate or you are going to copy its source into your project?

MPL2 is considered closed-source friendly license comparing to some. I think you misunderstood the risks.

[JonathanWilbur]

I was just going to use the crate. Maybe I did misread it. Thank you!