On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:31:21 -0500, Bill Baxter <wbax...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Walter Bright
<newshou...@digitalmars.com> wrote:
Jacob Carlborg wrote:
It's being discussed here:
http://www.dsource.org/projects/tango/forums/topic/786#3407
Thanks for the pointer. I see the discussion is about adopting the
Apache
license. I strongly suggest considering the Boost license, as it is very
permissive, and Phobos has converted to it. Boost has been
battle-tested in
the C++ community for years, and I am not aware of any problems or
controversies about it.
Another nice plus is that C++ users will likely already be familiar with
Boost, their company lawyers likely have already approved using Boost
licensed code, and so will be comfortable using D libraries identically
licensed.
To be fair I think all those things are true of the Apache license too.
http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boost_Software_License
===========================================
Boost Software License - Version 1.0 - August 17th, 2003
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person or
organization
obtaining a copy of the software and accompanying documentation covered
by
this license (the "Software") to use, reproduce, display, distribute,
execute, and transmit the Software, and to prepare derivative works of
the
Software, and to permit third-parties to whom the Software is furnished
to
do so, all subject to the following:
The copyright notices in the Software and this entire statement,
including
the above license grant, this restriction and the following disclaimer,
must be included in all copies of the Software, in whole or in part, and
all derivative works of the Software, unless such copies or derivative
works are solely in the form of machine-executable object code
generated by
a source language processor.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS
OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, TITLE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. IN NO
EVENT
SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS OR ANYONE DISTRIBUTING THE SOFTWARE BE
LIABLE
FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, TORT OR
OTHERWISE,
ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR
OTHER
DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
========================================================
Boost certainly wins on brevity.
Brevity FTW!
It looks to me like Boost and Apache 2.0 say basically exactly the
same thing, just Apache dedicates entire paragraphs to explaining what
the meaning of "is" is.
--bb
The Apache 2.0 license requires attribution. It's therefore unsuitable for
a standard library. From the website FAQ:
"
It forbids you to:
redistribute any piece of Apache-originated software without proper
attribution;
use any marks owned by The Apache Software Foundation in any way that
might state or imply that the Foundation endorses your distribution;
use any marks owned by The Apache Software Foundation in any way that
might state or imply that you created the Apache software in question.
It requires you to:
include a copy of the license in any redistribution you may make that
includes Apache software;
provide clear attribution to The Apache Software Foundation for any
distributions that include Apache software.
"
