D library projects : adopting Boost license

[Don]

Yigal Chripun wrote:
> 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.

At the present time, D DLLs don't work with D apps. Only static linking 
works. And disallowing static linking is utterly ridiculous, anyway.

Conditions 2 and 3 above are no problem. I'm a bit scared of 1, though. 
What does "give" mean? (It's not even "make available"). Sounds as 
though EVERY D app (even "Hello, world" apps) would need to include a 
license file for the standard library.