On 9/21/10 10:58 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
klickverbot wrote:
On 9/20/10 5:10 PM, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
I find myself wishing some more OSS projects had commercial-friendly
licenses. :-/ In particular LLVM, as I do agree it might have been great
if Walter were able to work with it without these IP worries.
You want something even more liberal than BSD?
The Boost license we use in Phobos is more liberal than BSD. And that's
exactly why we picked it. It was the most liberal one we could find that
was in wide use.
Yes, and I agree that Boost was and is a good choice for a standard
library – binary attribution is a no-go for many applications.
But Bruno was referring to LLVM, and for a compiler, BSD seems like a
reasonable choice to me (parties like Apple and Adobe are free to use
it, but cannot claim they wrote it themselves).
Oh, by the way, none of my comments were intended to be an insult
against you, I were really just curious why you have an exceptionally
defensive opinion on possible copyright infringements (well, for the
Open Source world, at least)…
