eliminate writeln et comp?

[Don]

Fawzi Mohamed wrote:
> On 2009-03-21 14:23:51 +0100, Daniel Keep <daniel.keep.lists at gmail.com> 
> said:
> 
>>
>>
>> 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
> 
> This is bullshit, if you look at the header of c stdio.h you extremely 
> likely to find exactly the same disclaimer (at least I did find it).
> 
> If in your program you have an "about" and copyright, or you have 
> documentation to it, then yes you should credit the inclusion of tango 
> if you use the BSD license.

Even if it doesn't have an "about" or documentation, you STILL need to 
include a license, as far as I can see. I don't see anything in the BSD 
license that allows you to avoid it, ever.

> If you want to avoid this then you should use the AFL license (which yes 
> is incompatible with GPLv2).
> 
> This if looking more and more like FUD.
> 
> Fawzi
> 
Until this thread, I'd believed that. But now it seems that Phobos and 
Tango genuinely _are_ incompatible in terms of license issues.

Are you sure that the AFL allows you to avoid the issue of providing a 
license? It's astonishingly difficult to make sense of that license. The 
16-page commentary that it links you to is total rubbish, it seems to 
basically be an attack on the GPL, without saying what the AFL actually 
is. It only says:

"In effect, then, AFL 3.0 is like the BSD license, with no
reciprocal obligation to disclose source code."
What the heck does "like" mean?
It's certainly not the same, since BSD is GPL-compatible and AFL isn't.
On that basis, it is NOT like the BSD license.
I find that document (http://www.rosenlaw.com/OSL3.0-explained.pdf) 
appalling, and it severely erodes my confidence in the AFL.