D Compiler as a Library

[Roman D. Boiko]

On Thursday, 19 April 2012 at 10:15:36 UTC, Roman D. Boiko wrote:
> On Thursday, 19 April 2012 at 09:58:52 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
> wrote:
>> "David Nadlinger" <see at klickverbot.at> wrote in message
>> news:voymctvtskltfzhslhkp at forum.dlang.org...
>>> On Monday, 16 April 2012 at 11:57:29 UTC, Bernard Helyer 
>>> wrote:
>>>> Oh god, what did we decide on? Boost?
>>>
>>> Imho, MIT is just fine for a compiler. It's not like a line 
>>> of attribution is much to ask when you are getting an entire 
>>> compiler fronend for free - in fact, applications should 
>>> probably mention the compiler frontend they use in the docs 
>>> anyway in case there are incompatibilities, .
>>>
>>
>> There's no attribution in MIT.
>
> Yes, there is no attribution: 
> https://github.com/roman-d-boiko/SDC/blob/master/LICENCE. It is 
> very similar to Boost. Actually, I prefer Boost only because it 
> is slightly more popular and because the D standard library 
> uses it. I'm perfectly happy with MIT, though, and already 
> cloned SDC :)
>
> Just interested about motivation behind choosing MIT.

Motivation for Boost would be reducing the number of licenses 
that the code author must know. Also, here are some differences 
between these licenses, which I consider as Boost advantages:

"The Boost Software License is based upon the MIT license, but 
differs from the MIT license in that it:

(i) makes clear that licenses can be granted to organizations as 
well as individuals;

(ii) does not require that the license appear with executables or 
other binary uses of the library;

(iii) expressly disclaims -- on behalf of the author and 
copyright holders of the software only -- the warranty of title 
(a warranty that, under the Uniform Commercial Code, is separate 
from the warranty of non-infringement)

(iv) does not extend the disclaimer of warranties to licensees, 
so that they may, if they choose, undertake such warranties 
(e.g., in exchange for payment)."

http://ideas.opensource.org/ticket/45