[OT] open-source license issues

[Daniel Gibson]

Am 12.04.2011 11:34, schrieb spir:
> On 04/12/2011 04:06 AM, Daniel Gibson wrote:
>> Well I'd always use PostgreSQL instead of MySQL when having the
>> choice, but
>> 1. often MySQL needs to be used because it's already there
>> 2. PostgreSQL uses the BSD-License which also isn't suitable for Phobos.
>>
>> BTW: I think PHP has a native SQL driver (under their BSD-style PHP
>> license) - maybe that could be adapted to be used with D, if it's
>> written in C. This still couldn't be shipped with Phobos, but at least
>> there are no stupid restrictions on using it for commercial software.
> 
> I don't understand this story of shipping, neither. It seems to me D's
> style rather pushes to reuse libs (esp written in C), that users (both
> programmer & end-user) are forced to install anyway. Licenses that allow
> reuse (and shipping) provided a copyright note is properly inserted do
> not change anything for me.
> 
> Instead, I find this copyright note, not only *extremely* light, but
> also fair, and even nice. In my views, people who do not agree with that
> are the kinds who want to freely take from a community and give nothing
> back in exchange (rather corporations in fact); not even attribute their
> work to authors. Bad and sad :-(
> 
> Denis

Yeah this is all fine when you use a third-party lib, but IMHO for a
standard-lib of a language such a copyright-note shouldn't be necessary.
It's not like you have to know that phobos uses zlib, for example.
Sure it's nice if you add to your README "I used the D programming
language and it's standardlib Phobos, which includes the zlib I used for
compression and SQLite for simple database stuff to create this", but it
shouldn't be necessary.