On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 13:05:24 -0400, Russel Winder <rus...@russel.org.uk>
wrote:
On Mon, 2011-04-11 at 15:39 +0000, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
[ . . . ]
fine, but a standard library is distributed with D programs. LGPL
requires you to send source when distributing the library.
I would have to check but as far as I remember the (L)GPL does not
require you to distribute the source with the compiled form if that is
what is distributed, it requires that the end user can get the source
for the compiled form. From a distribution perspective these are very
different things. cf. The Maven Repository, which distributes masses of
compiled jar files and no source in sight.
IIUC, the LGPL is like applying the GPL to the library, but does not
restrict proprietary software from linking to it. I think this means you
can distribute your proprietary software without providing source code.
However, if you supply the library (which is covered under the same rules
as the GPL), then you must provide or provide upon request the source code
to the LGPL-covered library. If you don't ship the library, then you
don't have to supply the source code, but then you are shipping a binary
that doesn't work unless they also download the LGPL library separately.
It all adds up to "not going to be in druntime/Phobos" :)
-Steve
