On Thursday, November 10, 2011 10:29 Steven Schveighoffer wrote: > On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 13:10:26 -0500, Jonathan M Davis <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > On Thursday, November 10, 2011 05:23 Steven Schveighoffer wrote: > >> On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 00:55:01 -0500, Steve Teale > >> > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > The libraries for unixODBC and for FreeTDS (communication with SQL > >> > Server) are LGPL. > >> > > >> > Would a D ODBC driver that used these be compatible with Phobos? > >> > >> glibc, which dmd (and all Linux binaries) rely on is LGPL. So if you are > >> saying what I think you are saying, yes. As long as the LGPL code is > >> kept > >> in a *separate* shared object, it is perfectly legal to link with it > >> without infecting phobos' license. > > > > Though the fact that it needs to be in a separate shared object does > > make it > > problematic to stick in Phobos, since Phobos is just one shared object. > > So, if > > he's looking to put it _in_ Phobos, then I don't think that we can do > > that > > with the current setup. > > My understanding is that the FreeTDS is its *own* shared object (installed > separately). We cannot include LGPL code in phobos.lib.
I'm afraid that I've never even heard of TDS, so I'm not quite sure how that relates. We theoretically _could_ provide LGPL code in a separate library, but we don't do anything like that now. > BTW, phobos is not a shared object (yet). LOL. True. I didn't think that statement through enough. It's a library, but not a shared one. - Jonathan M Davis
