Programming Windows D Examples are now Online!

[Sean Kelly]

The docs on the Boost license say as much as well, and derive from legal consult. I must say that after reading this I felt a lot better about the headers I've implemented. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 9, 2011, at 1:56 AM, Mike Parker <aldacron at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 7/9/2011 5:43 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 16:02:39 -0400, Johannes Pfau <spam at example.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 15:39:22 -0400, Johannes Pfau <spam at example.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
>>>>>> What's the license on the bindings?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Have not thought about that yet, but I think I'll use the boost
>>>>> license. (I'm not sure if that's possible, as
>>>>> cairo is LGPL, maybe I'll have to release the binding part at least
>>>>> as LGPL, as that's based on the cairo headers? Stupid licensing
>>>>> stuff... )
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I'm not a lawyer, but I think LGPL just covers the library code, not
>>>> the bindings, as long as the link is dynamic. In other words, LGPL
>>>> specifically allows dynamically linking with any license, as long as
>>>> the library remains LGPL.
>>>> 
>>>> For reference, the C standard library (which phobos uses extensively)
>>>> is LGPL on Linux (glibc).
>>>> 
>>>> -Steve
>>> 
>>> True, but in this case the bindings were translated from the cairo c
>>> headers. I wasn't sure if the bindings could be considered a derivate
>>> work.
>> 
>> Well, if we look at this logically -- if the C headers contain so much
>> code that using them would require releasing your software under LGPL,
>> then why even use LGPL? The only point for using LGPL is to allow other
>> licensed code to use your library, yet still have your library be under
>> the GPL. If linking a C application using the C headers doesn't require
>> GPL'ing your code (or LGPL'ing), then I can't see how a translation of
>> them would require it.
>> 
>> But almost certainly a translation of the headers is a derived work, so
>> the bindings themselves should have the same license as the headers
>> (LGPL). I think this should cause no problems with linking proprietary
>> code. I don't think it would qualify as a phobos module though.
>> 
> 
> A few years back I was concerned about this same issue with my SDL bindings in Derelict. SDL was licensed under the LGPL. So I posted a question to the SDL mailing list. The maintainer, Sam Lantinga, answered thus:
> 
> "The API is not copyrighted, only the SDL implementation is.  I would consider this a work that uses the library, rather than a derivative work.  You'll notice that using inline functions in LGPL headers, which technically places code from those headers in your object code, also does not change your work into a derivative work - it remains a work that uses the library."
> 
> That reinforced my own understanding. So for years now the license for Derelict's bindings has usually been different from the C libraries. That's especially true for Derelict 2, which is licensed under Boost.
> 
> Realistically, I'd like to release Derelict with no license at all. I'm not sure exactly what it is I'm licensing. The lion's share of original code in the project is in the utility package. The bindings themselves generally have very little non-interface code, just what's required to implement the loader. But I've learned that people get nervous when there's no license attached to a library. So Boost it is.