Andrei's Google Talk

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 17:15:40 -0400, Walter Bright  
<newshound2 at digitalmars.com> 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
>
>       -- OR ---
>
> **** use a license that doesn't require binary attribution ****
>

At the risk of furthering this pointless debate, I'll say that you did not  
include:

4.1 Include a license file with the distribution with the BSD license text

I agree with you that BSD is not the right license for a standard library,  
for the simple fact that you do not want to put *any* requirements on your  
users, even if they are as benign as "include this license file with your  
binary," but Gary's original point seems to be lost here -- there is no  
binary attribution clause.  There is a clause requiring that the materials  
distributed *along side* the binary include the license in at least one of  
them.

Analyzing the paragraph that requires "binary attribution":

    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.

If this didn't mean "in the other materials", then that part of the  
sentence would be eliminated.  It doesn't mean in the binary, it means in  
the documentation and/or other materials.

It's not an insignificant thing, it made me rethink my views on the BSD  
license.  I still think that's too restrictive for a standard library, and  
it does nothing to alleviate fears of taint.

-Steve