On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 13:36:38 -0500, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisp...@gmx.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, November 10, 2011 10:29 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 13:10:26 -0500, Jonathan M Davis
<jmdavisp...@gmx.com>
wrote:
> On Thursday, November 10, 2011 05:23 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 00:55:01 -0500, Steve Teale
>>
>> <steve.te...@britseyeview.com> wrote:
>> > The libraries for unixODBC and for FreeTDS (communication with SQL
>> > Server) are LGPL.
>> >
>> > Would a D ODBC driver that used these be compatible with Phobos?
>>
>> glibc, which dmd (and all Linux binaries) rely on is LGPL. So if you
are
>> saying what I think you are saying, yes. As long as the LGPL code is
>> kept
>> in a *separate* shared object, it is perfectly legal to link with it
>> without infecting phobos' license.
>
> Though the fact that it needs to be in a separate shared object does
> make it
> problematic to stick in Phobos, since Phobos is just one shared
object.
> So, if
> he's looking to put it _in_ Phobos, then I don't think that we can do
> that
> with the current setup.
My understanding is that the FreeTDS is its *own* shared object
(installed
separately). We cannot include LGPL code in phobos.lib.
I'm afraid that I've never even heard of TDS, so I'm not quite sure how
that
relates. We theoretically _could_ provide LGPL code in a separate
library, but
we don't do anything like that now.
I wasn't sure so I looked it up:
http://www.freetds.org/faq.html#where.is.libtds.so
Apparently, you can still have LGPL code that is statically linked? I'm
not sure now how that works, my understanding was always that LGPL works
because of shared objects.
-Steve
