D library projects : adopting Boost license

[Yigal Chripun]

Don wrote:
> 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.
> 

I agree, supplying the stdlib license file with a hello, world 
executable would be very bad.

Generally speaking, is static linking of the stdlib the right thing?
I realize that's the only working option now, but when this is fixed 
(and it really should be fixed) would that still be the correct choice 
for the stdlib?