D library projects : adopting Boost license

[Robert Jacques]

On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 01:08:03 -0500, Yigal Chripun <yigal100 at gmail.com>  
wrote:

> Robert Jacques wrote:
>>  The Apache 2.0 license requires attribution. It's therefore unsuitable  
>> for a standard library. From the website FAQ:
>> "
>> It forbids you to:
>> redistribute any piece of Apache-originated software without proper  
>> attribution;
>> use any marks owned by The Apache Software Foundation in any way that  
>> might state or imply that the Foundation endorses your distribution;
>> use any marks owned by The Apache Software Foundation in any way that  
>> might state or imply that you created the Apache software in question.
>>  It requires you to:
>> include a copy of the license in any redistribution you may make that  
>> includes Apache software;
>> provide clear attribution to The Apache Software Foundation for any  
>> distributions that include Apache software.
>> "
>
> excerpts from http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html
>
> "Derivative Works" shall mean any work, whether in Source or Object  
> form, that is based on (or derived from) the Work and for which the  
> editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications  
> represent, as a whole, an original work of authorship. For the purposes  
> of this License, Derivative Works shall not include works that remain  
> separable from, or merely link (or bind by name) to the interfaces of,  
> the Work and Derivative Works thereof.
>
> 4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the Work  
> or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without  
> modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that You meet the  
> following conditions:
>
>     1. You must give any other recipients of the Work or Derivative  
> Works a copy of this License; and
>
>     2. You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices  
> stating that You changed the files; and
>
>     3. You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works that  
> You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution  
> notices from the Source form of the Work, excluding those notices that  
> do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works; and
>
>
> /quote
>
> my understanding of the above is that using tango in your code doesn't  
> constitute as "Derivative Works". that means that _uesrs_ of Tango are  
> not required to provide attribution.

First,   according to international copyright law (Berne convention),  
compiling source code creates a derivative work. (See  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISC_License for some links)
Second,  4.1 explicitly require you to provide the license with all  
distributions.
Third,   Apache's FAQ, which was written by lawyers, instruct users to  
include the license/attribution.
Finally, the linking divide, allows you link together code licensed under  
different licensees. I believe the GPL also has a similar clause. It  
doesn't mean that if you distribute a compiled copy of the library (either  
explicitly as a dll/so or by statically linking it in) you don't have to  
include the Apache license. You just don't have to license your  
application which uses Tango under the Apache license.

There was a large discussion a while back about this, and essentially  
there are only 2 licenses suitable for a standard library: Boost and  
zlib/libpng (And technically WTFYW).