Possibility of relicensing to a slightly more permissive license?

[sdleffler]

I'd really like to use this crate as part of an MPLv2 licensed project. AGPL licensed crates are in my understanding hugely prohibitive to anyone looking to use them as part of Rust code (as almost every other Rust crate out there is licensed as MIT/Apache 2.0, which is the recommended default for Rust projects.) Is there a chance that this crate could be relicensed to a slightly more permissive option? LGPL in particular would be enough for me to use, as in my understanding LGPL crates can be used in arbitrarily licensed Rust crates without forcing the entire crate to be LGPL-licensed.

[ghost]

For my part as a potential consumer of this lib, I like to see more AGPL code in the world. I'm aware that goes against the Rust community's norm, but I also think those norms value the wrong ends of Free Software; usage by industry in proprietary code, rather than freedom of developers and users.

[vandenoever]

rome is a spare time project for me. AGPL assures that rome is used in scenarios where the user has the ability to inspect the code. This is important to me.

[berezovskyi]

@vandenoever is the one who decides, but you need to understand that *GPL means this library can never be used in any project under Apache or Eclipse foundation (as a person involved in an Eclipse project). So there is also a problem using this code even among OSS devs. Did you consider enterprise-friendly copyleft licenses like MPL, EPL?

[sdleffler]

This is precisely my issue. I have a project supported by Mozilla and using the MPLv2. As a result I'm sad to say I've had to start building my own alternative under the MPL instead of contributing.