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