[OT] open-source license issues

[Jonas Drewsen]

On 11/04/11 22.01, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> 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

Actually, if you haven't made any changes to the LGPL library that you 
are distribution then you can just refer to the projects homepage for 
the source code.

This also means that putting the list of URLs for the used LGPL 
libraries in the Phobos packages would suffice. Can't get much easier 
than that.

/Jonas