[OT] open-source license issues

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 13:05:24 -0400, Russel Winder <russel at russel.org.uk>  
wrote:

> On Mon, 2011-04-11 at 15:39 +0000, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> [ . . . ]
>> fine, but a standard library is distributed with D programs. LGPL
>> requires you to send source when distributing the library.
>
> I would have to check but as far as I remember the (L)GPL does not
> require you to distribute the source with the compiled form if that is
> what is distributed, it requires that the end user can get the source
> for the compiled form.  From a distribution perspective these are very
> different things.  cf. The Maven Repository, which distributes masses of
> compiled jar files and no source in sight.

IIUC, the LGPL is like applying the GPL to the library, but does not  
restrict proprietary software from linking to it.  I think this means you  
can distribute your proprietary software without providing source code.   
However, if you supply the library (which is covered under the same rules  
as the GPL), then you must provide or provide upon request the source code  
to the LGPL-covered library.  If you don't ship the library, then you  
don't have to supply the source code, but then you are shipping a binary  
that doesn't work unless they also download the LGPL library separately.

It all adds up to "not going to be in druntime/Phobos" :)

-Steve