[OT] open-source license issues

[Daniel Gibson]

Am 11.04.2011 19:05, schrieb Russel Winder:
> On Mon, 2011-04-11 at 15:39 +0000, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> [ . . . ]
>> fine, but a standard library is distributed with D programs. LGPL
>> requires you to send source when distributing the library.
> 
> I would have to check but as far as I remember the (L)GPL does not
> require you to distribute the source with the compiled form if that is
> what is distributed, it requires that the end user can get the source
> for the compiled form.  From a distribution perspective these are very
> different things.  cf. The Maven Repository, which distributes masses of
> compiled jar files and no source in sight.
> 
> [ . . . ]

The thing is: when someone develops a D application he would have to
ship a README with it that states "contains a LGPLed library, you can
get its source at blah.org".

For more or less the same reason BSD-licensed code (like from Tango)
isn't allowed in Phobos: Everybody shipping a D application would have
to write "Contains BSD licensed Code from the Blah project" in a README
that is distributed with the application (or into some Help->about box
or whatever).

Walter thinks (and I agree) that programs using the standard library of
a programming language shouldn't need to contain any copyright-notes or
similar because of license restrictions in the language or its standard
library.

Cheers,
- Daniel