[OT] open-source license issues

[spir]

On 04/12/2011 04:01 PM, Fawzi Mohamed wrote:
> For my personal libs/programs I fully agree with spir:
>
> 1) attribution is a very light burden
> 2) it is nice, and somehow the right thing to do
> 3) it gives back at least a bit of advertisement to the stuff *you can use freely*
>
> For those reasons I did release blip with an apache 2.0 license, by using it I
> can also easily integrate/use all kinds of free libraries,
> but it stays free, and usable also in commercial contexts.
>
> That said I think that having phobos using the Boost license, aside form "being
> nice for the user" it other subtle effects:
> yes it makes "standing on the shoulders of giants" more difficult, because you
> cannot as easily use other libraries,
> but exactly for that reason it forces one to rebuild things from scratch (or
> almost).
> For a *base* library, this is not necessarily a bad thing, it reduces
> dependencies, and might even give code that is more optimized.
>
> I think that there is space in D for other libraries, libraries that use
> licenses like apache 2.0 or BSD.
> Still I understand that the base library is boost licensed, it might not be my
> first choice for my own projects (I don't want to always
> develop everything from scratch), but it is a clear choice, and a choice that
> has its own merits.

Thanks to everyone, I know understand the point and the choice made for D, or 
rather Phobos. I still do not share the underlying opinion and would not do do 
that choice myself (find properly crediting someone for their work just a Good 
Thing, and no burden at all).
But at least, as Fawzi says, it's a clear choice; and I would not mind 
licensing under Boost potential contributions to Phobos.

Denis
-- 
_________________
vita es estrany
spir.wikidot.com