Any chance to call Tango as Extended Standard Library

[Steven Schveighoffer]

"Sean Kelly" wrote
> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> "Don" wrote
>>> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Don <nospam at nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>>>>> Let's not forget the licensing issues.  Tango is incompatible with 
>>>>>> some
>>>>>> developers license wise, as you must include attribution for Tango in 
>>>>>> any
>>>>>> derivative works (i.e. compiled binaries).
>>>>> Are you sure? Where is that written down? I can't find that anywhere 
>>>>> in the
>>>>> Tango license.
>>>> Probably this:
>>>>
>>>> 6. Attribution Rights. You must retain, in the Source Code of any
>>>> Derivative Works that You create, all copyright, patent, or trademark
>>>> notices from the Source Code of the Original Work, as well as any
>>>> notices of licensing and any descriptive text identified therein as an
>>>> "Attribution Notice." You must cause the Source Code for any
>>>> Derivative Works that You create to carry a prominent Attribution
>>>> Notice reasonably calculated to inform recipients that You have
>>>> modified the Original Work.
>>>>
>>>> I think it's just saying you can't remove stuff from the source code
>>>> that says who wrote it.  But it's got a thick legal accent that's a
>>>> little difficult to understand.
>>> Yes, it explicitly states that it's source code-only requirement.
>>> Perhaps the page should include an approximate explanation, to remove 
>>> confusion
>>
>> I'm not a lawyer, but I think that the artistic license requires source 
>> redistribution (I agree the license is difficult to comprehend), whereas 
>> the BSD style license requires attribution with binaries.  So either way, 
>> you must provide attribution.  Some companies may frown upon that, 
>> especially when we're talking about a standard library.
>
> I've read the BSD license very carefully and I think it only requires 
> attribution with binary distributions of the library, not apps written 
> with the library.  If I'm wrong I'd love to know, because druntime is 
> currently BSD licensed (something I've been meaning to reconsider).

As D currently is statically linked, any application is a binary 
distribution of the library.  However, even with shared libraries, I believe 
it is still considered a binary distribution if your application uses the 
library (as your code needs the dynamic library to run).  This is why the 
LGPL exists.  I don't know if there is an equivalent BSD version.

Again, not a lawyer :)

-steve