[OT] open-source license issues

[Daniel Gibson]

Am 12.04.2011 14:49, schrieb spir:
> On 04/12/2011 10:43 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Why care about the that readme file? Guess all software I have ever used
> under linux have such readmes. Who cares?
> 
> Denis

D is not a Linux/FOSS-only language, but also to be used on Windows and
for proprietary software. And especially for Windows it's common to
distribute software (especially freeware and shareware ) just as the
self-contained binary.
Also people using D have to know that they'll have to include this
readme - and this alone is deterrent. "What, I can't distribute my D
programs how I want but have to ship this license stuff with it? This
isn't needed when using C++ or C#, I better stick with that"

Cheers,
- Daniel