Am 12.04.2011 14:49, schrieb spir: > On 04/12/2011 10:43 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote: >> On 2011-04-12 03:45, Daniel Gibson wrote: >>> 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 >> >> If Phobos dynamically link to a LGPL licensed library and doesn't >> distrbute it, >> Phobos doesn't have to include a README file like that. > > Why care about the that readme file? Guess all software I have ever used > under linux have such readmes. Who cares? > > Denis
D is not a Linux/FOSS-only language, but also to be used on Windows and for proprietary software. And especially for Windows it's common to distribute software (especially freeware and shareware ) just as the self-contained binary. Also people using D have to know that they'll have to include this readme - and this alone is deterrent. "What, I can't distribute my D programs how I want but have to ship this license stuff with it? This isn't needed when using C++ or C#, I better stick with that" Cheers, - Daniel