Re: GNU License warning:

2017-01-18 Thread Kagamin via Digitalmars-d
On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 02:25:03 UTC, Ignacious wrote: Licenses should be more specific in their terminology and their behaviors and effects rather than using arbitrary divisions. If your plugin uses contrived API riddled with all good C(++) misfeatures to customize like 80% of

Re: GNU License warning:

2017-01-13 Thread Ignacious via Digitalmars-d
On Saturday, 14 January 2017 at 01:40:58 UTC, Chris M. wrote: On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 21:53:29 UTC, Ignacious wrote: On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 19:30:40 UTC, Chris Wright wrote: On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 15:19:57 +, Ignacious wrote: [...] LGPL is much more common, and LGPL isn't a

Re: GNU License warning:

2017-01-13 Thread Chris M. via Digitalmars-d
On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 21:53:29 UTC, Ignacious wrote: On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 19:30:40 UTC, Chris Wright wrote: On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 15:19:57 +, Ignacious wrote: [...] LGPL is much more common, and LGPL isn't a problem when you distribute by source. It *is* a problem with

Re: GNU License warning:

2017-01-13 Thread Ignacious via Digitalmars-d
On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 19:30:40 UTC, Chris Wright wrote: On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 15:19:57 +, Ignacious wrote: Yes, but D uses mostly bindings and if any of those bindings use it then It effects the D program that uses it. Since many of the bindings are written in C/C++ one can expect

Re: GNU License warning:

2017-01-13 Thread Chris Wright via Digitalmars-d
On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 15:19:57 +, Ignacious wrote: > Yes, but D uses mostly bindings and if any of those bindings use it then > It effects the D program that uses it. Since many of the bindings are > written in C/C++ one can expect that many of them use the GPL license. LGPL is much more

Re: GNU License warning:

2017-01-13 Thread Ignacious via Digitalmars-d
On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 15:56:40 UTC, Claude wrote: On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 15:15:14 UTC, Ignacious wrote: On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 12:01:22 UTC, bachmeier wrote: This is not the proper place to blog about software license preferences or to make unsubstantiated accusations

Re: GNU License warning:

2017-01-13 Thread Chris Wright via Digitalmars-d
On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 15:15:14 +, Ignacious wrote: > On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 12:01:22 UTC, bachmeier wrote: >> On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 02:25:03 UTC, Ignacious wrote: >>> [...] >> >> This is not the proper place to blog about software license preferences >> or to make unsubstantiated

Re: GNU License warning:

2017-01-13 Thread Claude via Digitalmars-d
On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 15:15:14 UTC, Ignacious wrote: On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 12:01:22 UTC, bachmeier wrote: This is not the proper place to blog about software license preferences or to make unsubstantiated accusations against an organization you don't like. There are other sites

Re: GNU License warning:

2017-01-13 Thread Ignacious via Digitalmars-d
On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 06:37:42 UTC, Joakim wrote: On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 02:25:03 UTC, Ignacious wrote: On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 01:27:02 UTC, Chris Wright wrote: [...] That makes no sense(it's obvious by the definition of derivative so you are not saying anything

Re: GNU License warning:

2017-01-13 Thread Ignacious via Digitalmars-d
On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 12:01:22 UTC, bachmeier wrote: On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 02:25:03 UTC, Ignacious wrote: [...] This is not the proper place to blog about software license preferences or to make unsubstantiated accusations against an organization you don't like. There are

Re: GNU License warning:

2017-01-13 Thread bachmeier via Digitalmars-d
On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 02:25:03 UTC, Ignacious wrote: You haven't really said anything relevant to the post. The issue is with how the GPL defines proper use of pre-existing works. The ultimately point is that they arbitrarily decide how a work uses another based on "fork and exec"

Re: GNU License warning:

2017-01-12 Thread Joakim via Digitalmars-d
On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 02:25:03 UTC, Ignacious wrote: On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 01:27:02 UTC, Chris Wright wrote: [...] That makes no sense(it's obvious by the definition of derivative so you are not saying anything meaningful/useful). Obviously if you build an independent work

Re: GNU License warning:

2017-01-12 Thread Ignacious via Digitalmars-d
On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 01:27:02 UTC, Chris Wright wrote: You offer an API and someone decides to build on it using the GPL -- no trouble there; your work is not a derivative of theirs, so their copyright cannot place restrictions on your work. That makes no sense(it's obvious by the

Re: GNU License warning:

2017-01-12 Thread Chris Wright via Digitalmars-d
You offer an API and someone decides to build on it using the GPL -- no trouble there; your work is not a derivative of theirs, so their copyright cannot place restrictions on your work. You build against an open standard and the only implementation is GPL -- your work is a derivative of the

Re: GNU License warning:

2017-01-12 Thread bachmeier via Digitalmars-d
On Thursday, 12 January 2017 at 17:35:23 UTC, Ignacious wrote: I think a license should exist that EXPLICITLY states what one can do with the source code and binary and what they are. I'm not sure about what your point is with this. The GPL is pretty explicit about what you can do with the