D Compiler as a Library

[deadalnix]

Le 19/04/2012 17:23, Roman D. Boiko a écrit :
> On Thursday, 19 April 2012 at 15:11:50 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
>> On Thursday, 19 April 2012 at 10:15:36 UTC, Roman D. Boiko wrote:
>>> Actually, I prefer Boost only because it is slightly more popular […]
>>
>> Not to argue about the Boost license being popular in the D community,
>> and not that the question would really matter, but what leads you to
>> this general conclusion? I couldn't find any credible statistics on a
>> quick Google search, but a numer of well known projects use the/a MIT
>> license (X, Ruby on Rails, Mono, Lua, …).
>>
>> David
>
> I wish I could delete that post :) My claim is not based on any research.
> However, I prefer Boost because:
>
> "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

Very good point. Is it too late to change again ?

By the way, what is the status of the attribution clause ?