On 2011-04-12 03:45, Daniel Gibson wrote:
Am 11.04.2011 19:05, schrieb Russel Winder:
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.
[ . . . ]
The thing is: when someone develops a D application he would have to
ship a README with it that states "contains a LGPLed library, you can
get its source at blah.org".
For more or less the same reason BSD-licensed code (like from Tango)
isn't allowed in Phobos: Everybody shipping a D application would have
to write "Contains BSD licensed Code from the Blah project" in a README
that is distributed with the application (or into some Help->about box
or whatever).
Walter thinks (and I agree) that programs using the standard library of
a programming language shouldn't need to contain any copyright-notes or
similar because of license restrictions in the language or its standard
library.
Cheers,
- Daniel
If Phobos dynamically link to a LGPL licensed library and doesn't
distrbute it, Phobos doesn't have to include a README file like that.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
