This library is just a proof-of-concept of the windows kernel-mode drivers, which can be written in Rust programming language.
It contains the types, constants and bindings for the Windows Driver Kit with target OS starting from Windows XP (x86/x64).
Neat proof-of-concept.
Rust is far from toy language today.
Some kind of courtship? a solid IoT?
[MIT also, why? -or better said, for whom?-]
Possibly because Apache 2.0 is only compatible with GPL 2.0 if the “or later” clause is present to allow it to be upgraded to GPL 3.0?
Feature.
Perhaps, but the recipient didn’t write the code, so they don’t get to pick the licensing strategy, and the author is free to disagree on its feature/bug status.
Edited 2016-04-14 07:09 UTC
So, Community Work and Mind-Investment Sinkable, if decided so, at some point in the future?
[So you fork, so what? Previous Investment already lost. Also lost Wide Steer Capacity, without loosing Critical Mass of the Product].
I’m confused. How does Apache/MIT change things when Apache alone already gave you that?
The only thing adding MIT as an option gets you is compatibility with licenses like “GPL 2.0 but not later” which forbid Apache 2.0’s patent termination/indemnification provisions as “additional restrictions” and, therefore, forbidden.
Not Rust. But Anything created with it. Anything you create is also MIT.
More is less, in licensing world. You have to be Apache compliant. And also you have to be MIT compliant.
Additional licenses ADD to your restrictions.
Could be Wrong:
“Copyright © 2011-2015 The Rust Project Developers. Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 or the MIT license, at your option.”
[“This introduction is now deprecated.”]
http://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/intro.html
Would like to know what the FSF thinks of the possible ‘legal’ meanings and consequences of this diffuse wording.
‘OR’ have had different [illogic] meanings on ‘legal-ese!
I hat when a lang abr evry keywrd
$still @it _beats {extraneous ^ punctuation}!