On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 17:15:40 -0400, Walter Bright
<newshou...@digitalmars.com> wrote:
Simen kjaeraas wrote:
lurker <l...@lurking.net> wrote:
A valid corner case example was given here: a hello world application.
A minimal hello world application is "Hello world!" + the bytes used
to make the syscall. The license text would bloat the executable
horribly. Thus, BSD isn't suitable for *all* commercial application
development. QED
So how is business in the "Hello world!" sales line of work? :p
Our choices are for anyone distributing a D app, commercial or not:
1. require a --help switch printing the attribution
2. require an about box printing the attribution
3. require a string embedded in the binary with attribution
4. assure users that even though the license says it requires binary
attribution, we'll look the other way if they omit it and promise we
won't sue
5. argue with lawyers about what the binary attribution actually means
6. argue with customers who won't use D because their lawyers were
unsure of what the binary attribution actually means
7. have endless threads in the n.g. discussing how the binary
attribution requirement should be satisfied by users
8. send lawyer letters to D users castigating them for not including
binary attribution
-- OR ---
**** use a license that doesn't require binary attribution ****
At the risk of furthering this pointless debate, I'll say that you did not
include:
4.1 Include a license file with the distribution with the BSD license text
I agree with you that BSD is not the right license for a standard library,
for the simple fact that you do not want to put *any* requirements on your
users, even if they are as benign as "include this license file with your
binary," but Gary's original point seems to be lost here -- there is no
binary attribution clause. There is a clause requiring that the materials
distributed *along side* the binary include the license in at least one of
them.
Analyzing the paragraph that requires "binary attribution":
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
If this didn't mean "in the other materials", then that part of the
sentence would be eliminated. It doesn't mean in the binary, it means in
the documentation and/or other materials.
It's not an insignificant thing, it made me rethink my views on the BSD
license. I still think that's too restrictive for a standard library, and
it does nothing to alleviate fears of taint.
-Steve
