D Compiler as a Library

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Roman D. Boiko" <rb at d-coding.com> wrote in message 
news:gyhkcrhkaedsjzoohrvp at forum.dlang.org...
>
> Motivation for Boost would be reducing the number of licenses that the 
> code author must know. Also, here are some differences between these 
> licenses, which I consider as Boost advantages:
>

MIT's *much* easier to understand though. Boost has some real goofy, 
obfuscated wordings. Although it's *worlds* better in that regard than the 
completely impenatrable GPL or Creative Commons.

> "The Boost Software License is based upon the MIT license, but differs 
> from the MIT license in that it:
>
> (i) makes clear that licenses can be granted to organizations as well as 
> individuals;
>
> (ii) does not require that the license appear with executables or other 
> binary uses of the library;
>

My favorite license, zlib ( http://www.opensource.org/licenses/Zlib ) 
doesn't have this #2 issue, and it's even easier to read and understand than 
MIT.

Plus it doesn't say anything like "to any person", so it should take care of 
#1, too. (Although personally, I think I like MIT better in that regard: 
It's a deterrent against corporations, which gives it a little bit of the 
benefit of the GPL, but without all the bullshit.)

> (iii) expressly disclaims -- on behalf of the author and copyright holders 
> of the software only -- the warranty of title (a warranty that, under the 
> Uniform Commercial Code, is separate from the warranty of 
> non-infringement)
>
> (iv) does not extend the disclaimer of warranties to licensees, so that 
> they may, if they choose, undertake such warranties (e.g., in exchange for 
> payment)."
>
> http://ideas.opensource.org/ticket/45