D library projects : adopting Boost license

[Yigal Chripun]

Robert Jacques wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 01:08:03 -0500, Yigal Chripun <yigal100 at gmail.com> 
> wrote:
> 
>> Robert Jacques wrote:
>>>  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.
>>> "
>>
>> excerpts from http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html
>>
>> "Derivative Works" shall mean any work, whether in Source or Object 
>> form, that is based on (or derived from) the Work and for which the 
>> editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications 
>> represent, as a whole, an original work of authorship. For the 
>> purposes of this License, Derivative Works shall not include works 
>> that remain separable from, or merely link (or bind by name) to the 
>> interfaces of, the Work and Derivative Works thereof.
>>
>> 4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the Work 
>> or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without 
>> modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that You meet 
>> the following conditions:
>>
>>     1. You must give any other recipients of the Work or Derivative 
>> Works a copy of this License; and
>>
>>     2. You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices 
>> stating that You changed the files; and
>>
>>     3. You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works 
>> that You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution 
>> notices from the Source form of the Work, excluding those notices that 
>> do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works; and
>>
>>
>> /quote
>>
>> my understanding of the above is that using tango in your code doesn't 
>> constitute as "Derivative Works". that means that _uesrs_ of Tango are 
>> not required to provide attribution.
> 
> First,   according to international copyright law (Berne convention), 
> compiling source code creates a derivative work. (See 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISC_License for some links)
> Second,  4.1 explicitly require you to provide the license with all 
> distributions.
> Third,   Apache's FAQ, which was written by lawyers, instruct users to 
> include the license/attribution.
> Finally, the linking divide, allows you link together code licensed 
> under different licensees. I believe the GPL also has a similar clause. 
> It doesn't mean that if you distribute a compiled copy of the library 
> (either explicitly as a dll/so or by statically linking it in) you don't 
> have to include the Apache license. You just don't have to license your 
> application which uses Tango under the Apache license.
> 
> There was a large discussion a while back about this, and essentially 
> there are only 2 licenses suitable for a standard library: Boost and 
> zlib/libpng (And technically WTFYW).
> 

Ok, I ain't a layer so let's see if I understood you correctly:

You're saying that if I write code using Tango, I can license *my* code 
with whatever I want. My source will require a tango dll to work and 
*that* dll must come with its apache 2.0 license file.

That sounds completely reasonable to me. I don't get what the problem 
with this scheme of things.