[OT] open-source license issues

Jacob Carlborg doob at me.com
Tue Apr 12 01:43:50 PDT 2011


On 2011-04-12 03:45, Daniel Gibson wrote:
> Am 11.04.2011 19:05, schrieb Russel Winder:
>> 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.
>>
>> [ . . . ]
>
> The thing is: when someone develops a D application he would have to
> ship a README with it that states "contains a LGPLed library, you can
> get its source at blah.org".
>
> For more or less the same reason BSD-licensed code (like from Tango)
> isn't allowed in Phobos: Everybody shipping a D application would have
> to write "Contains BSD licensed Code from the Blah project" in a README
> that is distributed with the application (or into some Help->about box
> or whatever).
>
> Walter thinks (and I agree) that programs using the standard library of
> a programming language shouldn't need to contain any copyright-notes or
> similar because of license restrictions in the language or its standard
> library.
>
> Cheers,
> - Daniel

If Phobos dynamically link to a LGPL licensed library and doesn't 
distrbute it, Phobos doesn't have to include a README file like that.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list