DConf 2013 Closing Keynote: Quo Vadis by Andrei Alexandrescu
Joseph Rushton Wakeling
joseph.wakeling at webdrake.net
Tue Jul 2 02:38:44 PDT 2013
On Monday, 1 July 2013 at 21:20:39 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 7/1/2013 2:04 PM, Brad Roberts wrote:
>> Actually, Boost was specifically chosen because it didn't
>> require attribution
>> when redistributing. If BSD hadn't had that clause we probably
>> would be using it
>> instead.
>
> That was indeed another important reason for it. But we were
> well aware of and approved of the idea that people could take
> it and make closed source versions.
It was always clear (and logical) to me why the core libraries
were permissively licensed, but the
no-need-to-give-attribution-for-non-source-distribution feature
was a subtlety I hadn't considered before.
More information about the Digitalmars-d-announce
mailing list