[OT] open-source license issues

[Adam D. Ruppe]

spir wrote:
> There is a point I don't understand: if I'm right, LGPL as well as
> all other "open source", not strictly free-software, licenses allow
> using licensed software even for "privative" (proprietary) work.

If the user already had the library installed, I *think* we'd be
fine, but a standard library is distributed with D programs. LGPL
requires you to send source when distributing the library.

We want to keep distributing programs as easy as possible. I'm
not against using lgpl things, but it should be an extra step
so the programmer realizes he has another hurdle to deal with
(either packaging the source with his app or adding instructions
to the installer/readme file so the user can install the library
themselves).

In short, it will work, but it won't *Just Work*, and Phobos
definitely should Just Work.