TOS updated to match RFCs and Rust repository

Hello everyone, just a quick update. We've changed the TOS to the following. In particular, as of 1 week from today, user contributors will now be licensed in the same way as Rust RFCs and the Rust repository itself:

User contributions made on or after 2020-07-17 are dual-licensed under the MIT and Apache 2.0 licenses unless otherwise stated. The licenses were explicitly chosen to ensure that text from comments on this forum may be included in RFCs, which are also licensed in the same fashion, per RFC 2044. This license also implies that content from the comments on this forum (including code snippets) can be incorporated into the rust-lang/rust repository (or other repositories using a similar license).

User contributions made before 2020-07-17 are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. Without limiting any of those representations or warranties, Mozilla has the right (though not the obligation) to, in Mozilla’s sole discretion (i) refuse or remove any content that, in Mozilla’s reasonable opinion, violates any Mozilla policy or is in any way harmful or objectionable, or (ii) terminate or deny access to and use of the Website to any individual or entity for any reason, in Mozilla’s sole discretion. Mozilla will have no obligation to provide a refund of any amounts previously paid.


Here is the link to an URLO post I made. The crosslink is because the concern I laid out there is equally valid here.

For the record, all of my contributions, including ones already made, may be considered dual-licensed under MIT or Apache 2.0, at your option.

Delighted to see this addressed. (Now if only there was any hope of resolving the attribution-of-Rust-stdlib issue...)

Minor nitpick:

There should probably be a paragraph break before "Without limiting", i.e. before the sentences saying Mozilla has the right to remove content. The current layout makes it seem like those terms might only apply to contributions made before 2020-07-17, which is presumably not the intent, since those kinds of terms are orthogonal to copyright licenses.