Am 11.04.2011 19:05, schrieb Russel Winder: > 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. > > [ . . . ]
The thing is: when someone develops a D application he would have to ship a README with it that states "contains a LGPLed library, you can get its source at blah.org". For more or less the same reason BSD-licensed code (like from Tango) isn't allowed in Phobos: Everybody shipping a D application would have to write "Contains BSD licensed Code from the Blah project" in a README that is distributed with the application (or into some Help->about box or whatever). Walter thinks (and I agree) that programs using the standard library of a programming language shouldn't need to contain any copyright-notes or similar because of license restrictions in the language or its standard library. Cheers, - Daniel