Am 12.04.2011 10:43, schrieb Jacob Carlborg: > 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. >
Yeah but that's against the idea of Phobos being self-contained.
