[OT] open-source license issues

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Jonas Drewsen" <jdrewsen at nospam.com> wrote in message 
news:invnrn$2pgf$1 at digitalmars.com...
> 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" :)
>>
>
> 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.
>

Sounds like a pain for the users of Phobos (and maybe the users of 
Phobos-developed software?).

Regardless, I think we've clearly demonstrated the complete impenetrability 
of (L)GPL. I've long since given up trying to understand it, and I seriously 
doubt that anyone really truly understands it (it's the C++ of the legal 
world). Even if you do miraculously understand one form of it, there still 
probably about 10 other versions and half of them are even incompatible with 
each other (in poorly-understood ways). The whole thing's just a damn mess. 
I've always found it best to just avoid any (L)GPL source or library 
outright. Not worth the trouble.