[OT] open-source license issues

[Daniel Gibson]

Am 12.04.2011 10:43, schrieb Jacob Carlborg:
> 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.
> 

Yeah but that's against the idea of Phobos being self-contained.