Sun, 26 Sep 2010 14:15:40 -0700, Walter Bright wrote: > Simen kjaeraas wrote: >> lurker <l...@lurking.net> wrote: >> >>> A valid corner case example was given here: a hello world application. >>> A minimal hello world application is "Hello world!" + the bytes used >>> to make the syscall. The license text would bloat the executable >>> horribly. Thus, BSD isn't suitable for *all* commercial application >>> development. QED >> >> So how is business in the "Hello world!" sales line of work? :p > > Our choices are for anyone distributing a D app, commercial or not:
( > > 1. require a --help switch printing the attribution 2. require an about > box printing the attribution 3. require a string embedded in the binary > with attribution 4. assure users that even though the license says it > requires binary attribution, we'll look the other way if they omit it > and promise we won't sue 5. argue with lawyers about what the binary > attribution actually means 6. argue with customers who won't use D > because their lawyers were unsure of what the binary attribution > actually means 7. have endless threads in the n.g. discussing how the > binary attribution requirement should be satisfied by users 8. send > lawyer letters to D users castigating them for not including binary > attribution AND > use large amounts of existing code to boost adoption and make D faster > a mature platform for real world application development ) > > -- OR --- ( > > **** use a license that doesn't require binary attribution **** AND > reimplement everything from scratch (aka NIH) )
