D library projects : adopting Boost license

[Robert Jacques]

On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:31:21 -0500, Bill Baxter <wbaxter at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Walter Bright
> <newshound1 at digitalmars.com> wrote:
>> Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>>>
>>> It's being discussed here:
>>> http://www.dsource.org/projects/tango/forums/topic/786#3407
>>
>> Thanks for the pointer. I see the discussion is about adopting the  
>> Apache
>> license. I strongly suggest considering the Boost license, as it is very
>> permissive, and Phobos has converted to it. Boost has been  
>> battle-tested in
>> the C++ community for years, and I am not aware of any problems or
>> controversies about it.
>>
>> Another nice plus is that C++ users will likely already be familiar with
>> Boost, their company lawyers likely have already approved using Boost
>> licensed code, and so will be comfortable using D libraries identically
>> licensed.
>
> To be fair I think all those things are true of the Apache license too.
>
>>
>> http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boost_Software_License
>>
>> ===========================================
>> Boost Software License - Version 1.0 - August 17th, 2003
>>
>> Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person or  
>> organization
>> obtaining a copy of the software and accompanying documentation covered  
>> by
>> this license (the "Software") to use, reproduce, display, distribute,
>> execute, and transmit the Software, and to prepare derivative works of  
>> the
>> Software, and to permit third-parties to whom the Software is furnished  
>> to
>> do so, all subject to the following:
>>
>> The copyright notices in the Software and this entire statement,  
>> including
>> the above license grant, this restriction and the following disclaimer,
>> must be included in all copies of the Software, in whole or in part, and
>> all derivative works of the Software, unless such copies or derivative
>> works are solely in the form of machine-executable object code  
>> generated by
>> a source language processor.
>>
>> THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS  
>> OR
>> IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
>> FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, TITLE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. IN NO  
>> EVENT
>> SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS OR ANYONE DISTRIBUTING THE SOFTWARE BE  
>> LIABLE
>> FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, TORT OR  
>> OTHERWISE,
>> ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR  
>> OTHER
>> DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
>> ========================================================
>>
>
> Boost certainly wins on brevity.
> Brevity FTW!
>
> It looks to me like Boost and Apache 2.0 say basically exactly the
> same thing, just Apache dedicates entire paragraphs to explaining what
> the meaning of "is" is.
>
> --bb

The Apache 2.0 license requires attribution. It's therefore unsuitable for  
a standard library. From the website FAQ:
"
It forbids you to:
redistribute any piece of Apache-originated software without proper  
attribution;
use any marks owned by The Apache Software Foundation in any way that  
might state or imply that the Foundation endorses your distribution;
use any marks owned by The Apache Software Foundation in any way that  
might state or imply that you created the Apache software in question.

It requires you to:
include a copy of the license in any redistribution you may make that  
includes Apache software;
provide clear attribution to The Apache Software Foundation for any  
distributions that include Apache software.
"