Andrei's Google Talk

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 03:38:47 -0400, Gary Whatmore <no at spam.spam> wrote:

> Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 13:46:19 -0400, Bruno Medeiros
>> <brunodomedeiros+spam at com.gmail> wrote:
>>
>> > On 20/09/2010 16:13, klickverbot wrote:
>> >> On 9/20/10 5:10 PM, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
>> >>> I find myself wishing some more OSS projects had commercial-friendly
>> >>> licenses. :-/ In particular LLVM, as I do agree it might have been
>> >>> great
>> >>> if Walter were able to work with it without these IP worries.
>> >>
>> >> You want something even more liberal than BSD?
>> >
>> > Oh, from this discussion, I thought LLVM was GPL or LGPL, but not BSD
>> > (or more concretely, a variant of BSD from what I see).
>> >
>> > What is the issue then of Walter taking a look at the LLVM code? It  
>> does
>> > not seem to be the case that LLVM would send lawyers to anyone.
>>
>> BSD includes a binary attribution clause (not sure about LLVM), which
>> makes it undesirable license for commercial use.
>
> ---
> Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without  
> modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are  
> met:
>
>    1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright  
> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
>
>    2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright  
> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the  
> documentation and/or other materials  provided with the distribution.
> ---
>
> The way I understand this is: attach the (c) notice to the source code  
> and to the documentation and/or other materials  provided with the  
> distribution. This doesn't in any way force you to include the license  
> in the executable. Where did you get that idea from? Can you give some  
> examples when this is bad for commercial software or are you just  
> trolling?

You know, I always thought it said clearly that binary distributions must  
contain the license, but I think you are right.  The sentence is not very  
clear what happens when you distribute a binary only.  To me it reads that  
you include the license text *only* in the accompanying documentation, but  
what if there is no accompanying documentation or materials?

This could of course be solved by just including a text file with the  
license in it.

I have newfound interpretation of the BSD license, and I'm not so sure  
that it can't be used in the compiler.  In the standard library, probably  
not, we don't want to force someone who uses D to always distribute a  
specific license file.

However, I am not Walter, so I can't say exactly why he doesn't read  
BSD-style source but is OK reading boost-style source.  Maybe his  
interpretation is different from yours.

-Steve