eliminate writeln et comp?

[Daniel Keep]

Christopher Wright wrote:
> Daniel Keep wrote:
>>
>> Christopher Wright wrote:
>>> Daniel Keep wrote:
>>>> When was the last time you had to put this in your GCC-compiled
>>>> programs?
>>>>
>>>> "Portions of this program Copyright (C) Free Software Foundation.  Uses
>>>> glibc."
>>> Executable code resulting from compilation is not a work derived from
>>> GCC.
>>>
>>> glibc is extremely difficult to link statically and is distributed under
>>> the LGPL, so no copyright notice is necessary.
>>>
>>> If dmd had good support for dynamic linking, this wouldn't be nearly as
>>> much of an issue. Sadly, ddl seems to be on hiatus, and at any rate, it
>>> can't be applied to the runtime.
>>
>> I think you're missing my point.  I'm saying that a standard library
>> shouldn't require you to insert legal disclaimers or attribution notices
>> into your program or its documentation.
>>
>> A standard library should be be as invisible as possible in this regard.
>>
>>   -- Daniel
> 
> Right. It's invisible with glibc because you link to it dynamically, and
> because everyone installs it by default. Druntime has neither of these
> advantages.

I'm not talking about distribution of the actual library machine code,
I'm talking about the LEGAL ISSUES.  Tango's license apparently requires
you to explicitly include attribution for Tango in your program.  This
means it's possible to naively compile "Hello, World" with Tango,
distribute it and break the law.

That glibc uses dynamic linking is immaterial: that there is no way to
avoid the legal issues with Tango no matter what you do is the point I'm
trying to make.

  -- Daniel