"Sean Kelly" wrote > Steven Schveighoffer wrote: >> "Don" wrote >>> Bill Baxter wrote: >>>> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Don <nos...@nospam.com> wrote: >>>>> Steven Schveighoffer wrote: >>>>>> Let's not forget the licensing issues. Tango is incompatible with >>>>>> some >>>>>> developers license wise, as you must include attribution for Tango in >>>>>> any >>>>>> derivative works (i.e. compiled binaries). >>>>> Are you sure? Where is that written down? I can't find that anywhere >>>>> in the >>>>> Tango license. >>>> Probably this: >>>> >>>> 6. Attribution Rights. You must retain, in the Source Code of any >>>> Derivative Works that You create, all copyright, patent, or trademark >>>> notices from the Source Code of the Original Work, as well as any >>>> notices of licensing and any descriptive text identified therein as an >>>> "Attribution Notice." You must cause the Source Code for any >>>> Derivative Works that You create to carry a prominent Attribution >>>> Notice reasonably calculated to inform recipients that You have >>>> modified the Original Work. >>>> >>>> I think it's just saying you can't remove stuff from the source code >>>> that says who wrote it. But it's got a thick legal accent that's a >>>> little difficult to understand. >>> Yes, it explicitly states that it's source code-only requirement. >>> Perhaps the page should include an approximate explanation, to remove >>> confusion >> >> I'm not a lawyer, but I think that the artistic license requires source >> redistribution (I agree the license is difficult to comprehend), whereas >> the BSD style license requires attribution with binaries. So either way, >> you must provide attribution. Some companies may frown upon that, >> especially when we're talking about a standard library. > > I've read the BSD license very carefully and I think it only requires > attribution with binary distributions of the library, not apps written > with the library. If I'm wrong I'd love to know, because druntime is > currently BSD licensed (something I've been meaning to reconsider).
As D currently is statically linked, any application is a binary distribution of the library. However, even with shared libraries, I believe it is still considered a binary distribution if your application uses the library (as your code needs the dynamic library to run). This is why the LGPL exists. I don't know if there is an equivalent BSD version. Again, not a lawyer :) -steve
