Fawzi Mohamed wrote:
On 2009-03-21 14:23:51 +0100, Daniel Keep <daniel.keep.li...@gmail.com>
said:
Christopher Wright wrote:
Daniel Keep wrote:
Christopher Wright wrote:
Daniel Keep wrote:
When was the last time you had to put this in your GCC-compiled
programs?
"Portions of this program Copyright (C) Free Software Foundation.
Uses
glibc."
Executable code resulting from compilation is not a work derived from
GCC.
glibc is extremely difficult to link statically and is distributed
under
the LGPL, so no copyright notice is necessary.
If dmd had good support for dynamic linking, this wouldn't be
nearly as
much of an issue. Sadly, ddl seems to be on hiatus, and at any
rate, it
can't be applied to the runtime.
I think you're missing my point. I'm saying that a standard library
shouldn't require you to insert legal disclaimers or attribution
notices
into your program or its documentation.
A standard library should be be as invisible as possible in this
regard.
-- Daniel
Right. It's invisible with glibc because you link to it dynamically, and
because everyone installs it by default. Druntime has neither of these
advantages.
I'm not talking about distribution of the actual library machine code,
I'm talking about the LEGAL ISSUES. Tango's license apparently requires
you to explicitly include attribution for Tango in your program. This
means it's possible to naively compile "Hello, World" with Tango,
distribute it and break the law.
That glibc uses dynamic linking is immaterial: that there is no way to
avoid the legal issues with Tango no matter what you do is the point I'm
trying to make.
-- Daniel
This is bullshit, if you look at the header of c stdio.h you extremely
likely to find exactly the same disclaimer (at least I did find it).
If in your program you have an "about" and copyright, or you have
documentation to it, then yes you should credit the inclusion of tango
if you use the BSD license.
Even if it doesn't have an "about" or documentation, you STILL need to
include a license, as far as I can see. I don't see anything in the BSD
license that allows you to avoid it, ever.
If you want to avoid this then you should use the AFL license (which yes
is incompatible with GPLv2).
This if looking more and more like FUD.
Fawzi
Until this thread, I'd believed that. But now it seems that Phobos and
Tango genuinely _are_ incompatible in terms of license issues.
Are you sure that the AFL allows you to avoid the issue of providing a
license? It's astonishingly difficult to make sense of that license. The
16-page commentary that it links you to is total rubbish, it seems to
basically be an attack on the GPL, without saying what the AFL actually
is. It only says:
"In effect, then, AFL 3.0 is like the BSD license, with no
reciprocal obligation to disclose source code."
What the heck does "like" mean?
It's certainly not the same, since BSD is GPL-compatible and AFL isn't.
On that basis, it is NOT like the BSD license.
I find that document (http://www.rosenlaw.com/OSL3.0-explained.pdf)
appalling, and it severely erodes my confidence in the AFL.
