On Wednesday, 25 November 2015 at 14:44:09 UTC, Wild wrote:
On Saturday, 21 November 2015 at 11:34:57 UTC, Piotrek wrote:
On Tuesday, 17 November 2015 at 23:35:58 UTC, Wild wrote:

I have recently started working on a 64bit kernel ...


Good to see more work in the OS area. I am even more happy there is more developers interested in GUI stuff. I have one fundamental question though:

Is it possible for you to pick the Boost license (especially for libs)?

This is my general concern for all libs developed by the D community. IMO license other than Boost is very cumbersome and doesn't comply with the D core libs.


Like cym13 said, there should not be any problems with the MPLv2 license.

MPLv2 is basically LGPL but at a file level and it won't "infect" any other files.
My code can included in any close source projects.
The only thing is that if any of my files are changed, those changes need to published.

- Dan


No worries :) Feel free to use whatever license you want. It is your code.

However my point was that the code released with license other than Boost (or similar) cannot be included in Phobos. That's one thing. The second is, non liberal licenses put burden on commercial adoption and put risk on legal actions. I know that from the employee POV who worked for many corporations and was obliged to follow the rules.

The bottom line is that viral licenses (with varying aggressiveness) are in opposition to business. Yes, I know GPL is used by companies but the cost is high. To use analogy: you can live with viruses, but you need money for medicines.

BTW. Sorry if I sounded to harsh and forgive me stealing your announcement for my propaganda ;) I'll try to figure out a way to present my ideas in proper way before I have to many enemies.


Reply via email to