D Compiler as a Library

[Roman D. Boiko]

On Thursday, 19 April 2012 at 15:30:21 UTC, deadalnix wrote:

>> "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 ?

If it will be decided to change the license, please pay attention 
to how should programmers apply the license to source and header 
files:

"Add a comment based on the following template, substituting 
appropriate text for the italicized portion:

//          Copyright Joe Coder 2004 - 2006.
// Distributed under the Boost Software License, Version 1.0.
//    (See accompanying file LICENSE_1_0.txt or copy at
//          http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt)
Please leave an empty line before and after the above comment 
block. It is fine if the copyright and license messages are not 
on different lines; in no case there should be other intervening 
text. Do not include "All rights reserved" anywhere.

Other ways of licensing source files have been considered, but 
some of them turned out to unintentionally nullify legal elements 
of the license. Having fixed language for referring to the 
license helps corporate legal departments evaluate the boost 
distribution. Creativity in license reference language is 
strongly discouraged, but judicious changes in the use of 
whitespace are fine."

http://www.boost.org/users/license.html

Alternatively, a license copy may be referenced at 
http://opensource.org/licenses/bsl1.0.html, which looks nicer. :)