Yes, that's correct. Whenever you write something in Rust, the license is automatically permissive. In fact, both US and EU copyright law automatically grant an irrevocable, perpetual license to use any and all Rust code that has ever been written for any purpose at all, including for commercial purpose, unless the code was written by a corporation.

Or, you know, you could just:

[package]
license = "GPL-3.0-only"

[–] badmin@lemmy.today 15 points 12 hours ago

To be fair, projects implemented in Rust and adopting the GPL/AGPL are just not that notable.

I mean, you can't expect people here to have heard of, let's say, that thing called Lemmy.

[–] veniasilente@lemmy.dbzer0.com -3 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Now that would be a horror story. Then again, it's one of the reasons why I'm asking. Rust fame is just too coincidental with a number of things to not be suspicious. There was a whole thing in C++ (dunno if it's still ongoing) about the "memory safety" meme, as well.

[–] vas@lemmy.ml 3 points 7 hours ago

I feel ya. To me, it's really sad that some new projects now use licenses that are really good for businesses but do not even protect the projects themselves. I'd rather live in a world where GPL share would increase. (Instead, GPL grows, but its share is diminishing.) All my projects so far are GPL/AGPL.

At the same time, Rust being picked for Linux has really nothing to do with the license. It's just what you said - a coincidence. The actual choice is made because of the language itself. It's a great language BTW.