[OT] open-source license issues

[spir]

On 04/12/2011 01:47 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Jonas Drewsen"<jdrewsen at nospam.com>  wrote in message
> news:invnrn$2pgf$1 at digitalmars.com...
>> On 11/04/11 22.01, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 13:05:24 -0400, Russel Winder<russel at russel.org.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> IIUC, the LGPL is like applying the GPL to the library, but does not
>>> restrict proprietary software from linking to it. I think this means you
>>> can distribute your proprietary software without providing source code.
>>> However, if you supply the library (which is covered under the same
>>> rules as the GPL), then you must provide or provide upon request the
>>> source code to the LGPL-covered library. If you don't ship the library,
>>> then you don't have to supply the source code, but then you are shipping
>>> a binary that doesn't work unless they also download the LGPL library
>>> separately.
>>>
>>> It all adds up to "not going to be in druntime/Phobos" :)
>>>
>>
>> Actually, if you haven't made any changes to the LGPL library that you are
>> distribution then you can just refer to the projects homepage for the
>> source code.
>>
>> This also means that putting the list of URLs for the used LGPL libraries
>> in the Phobos packages would suffice. Can't get much easier than that.
>>
>
> Sounds like a pain for the users of Phobos (and maybe the users of
> Phobos-developed software?).

I don't understand where the pain lies, here.

> Regardless, I think we've clearly demonstrated the complete impenetrability
> of (L)GPL. I've long since given up trying to understand it, and I seriously
> doubt that anyone really truly understands it (it's the C++ of the legal
> world). Even if you do miraculously understand one form of it, there still
> probably about 10 other versions and half of them are even incompatible with
> each other (in poorly-understood ways). The whole thing's just a damn mess.

Have not had a look at the Boost license, but a priori I doubt it to be more 
"penetrable" than any other open-source one. They all are somewhat convoluted 
because they use a right-privating legal tool (a license) to /provide/ rights 
to the user.

> I've always found it best to just avoid any (L)GPL source or library
> outright. Not worth the trouble.

What about other ones, like Creative Commons licenses?

Denis
-- 
_________________
vita es estrany
spir.wikidot.com