Andrei's Google Talk

[retard]

Sun, 26 Sep 2010 14:15:40 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:

> Simen kjaeraas wrote:
>> lurker <lurk at lurking.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> A valid corner case example was given here: a hello world application.
>>> A minimal hello world application is "Hello world!" + the bytes used
>>> to make the syscall. The license text would bloat the executable
>>> horribly. Thus, BSD isn't suitable for *all* commercial application
>>> development. QED
>> 
>> So how is business in the "Hello world!" sales line of work? :p
> 
> Our choices are for anyone distributing a D app, commercial or not:

(

> 
> 1. require a --help switch printing the attribution 2. require an about
> box printing the attribution 3. require a string embedded in the binary
> with attribution 4. assure users that even though the license says it
> requires binary attribution, we'll look the other way if they omit it
> and promise we won't sue 5. argue with lawyers about what the binary
> attribution actually means 6. argue with customers who won't use D
> because their lawyers were unsure of what the binary attribution
> actually means 7. have endless threads in the n.g. discussing how the
> binary attribution requirement should be satisfied by users 8. send
> lawyer letters to D users castigating them for not including binary
> attribution

AND

> use large amounts of existing code to boost adoption and make D faster
> a mature platform for real world application development

)

> 
>       -- OR ---

(
> 
> **** use a license that doesn't require binary attribution ****

AND

> reimplement everything from scratch (aka NIH)

)