Don wrote:
Yigal Chripun wrote:
Robert Jacques wrote:
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 01:08:03 -0500, Yigal Chripun
<yigal...@gmail.com> wrote:
Robert Jacques wrote:
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.
"
excerpts from http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html
"Derivative Works" shall mean any work, whether in Source or Object
form, that is based on (or derived from) the Work and for which the
editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other
modifications represent, as a whole, an original work of authorship.
For the purposes of this License, Derivative Works shall not include
works that remain separable from, or merely link (or bind by name)
to the interfaces of, the Work and Derivative Works thereof.
4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the
Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without
modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that You meet
the following conditions:
1. You must give any other recipients of the Work or Derivative
Works a copy of this License; and
2. You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices
stating that You changed the files; and
3. You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works
that You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and
attribution notices from the Source form of the Work, excluding
those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative
Works; and
/quote
my understanding of the above is that using tango in your code
doesn't constitute as "Derivative Works". that means that _uesrs_ of
Tango are not required to provide attribution.
First, according to international copyright law (Berne convention),
compiling source code creates a derivative work. (See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISC_License for some links)
Second, 4.1 explicitly require you to provide the license with all
distributions.
Third, Apache's FAQ, which was written by lawyers, instruct users
to include the license/attribution.
Finally, the linking divide, allows you link together code licensed
under different licensees. I believe the GPL also has a similar
clause. It doesn't mean that if you distribute a compiled copy of the
library (either explicitly as a dll/so or by statically linking it
in) you don't have to include the Apache license. You just don't have
to license your application which uses Tango under the Apache license.
There was a large discussion a while back about this, and essentially
there are only 2 licenses suitable for a standard library: Boost and
zlib/libpng (And technically WTFYW).
Ok, I ain't a layer so let's see if I understood you correctly:
You're saying that if I write code using Tango, I can license *my*
code with whatever I want. My source will require a tango dll to work
and *that* dll must come with its apache 2.0 license file.
That sounds completely reasonable to me. I don't get what the problem
with this scheme of things.
At the present time, D DLLs don't work with D apps. Only static linking
works. And disallowing static linking is utterly ridiculous, anyway.
Conditions 2 and 3 above are no problem. I'm a bit scared of 1, though.
What does "give" mean? (It's not even "make available"). Sounds as
though EVERY D app (even "Hello, world" apps) would need to include a
license file for the standard library.
I agree, supplying the stdlib license file with a hello, world
executable would be very bad.
Generally speaking, is static linking of the stdlib the right thing?
I realize that's the only working option now, but when this is fixed
(and it really should be fixed) would that still be the correct choice
for the stdlib?
