On Thursday, 19 April 2012 at 10:15:36 UTC, Roman D. Boiko wrote:
On Thursday, 19 April 2012 at 09:58:52 UTC, Nick Sabalausky
wrote:
"David Nadlinger" <s...@klickverbot.at> wrote in message
news:voymctvtskltfzhsl...@forum.dlang.org...
On Monday, 16 April 2012 at 11:57:29 UTC, Bernard Helyer
wrote:
Oh god, what did we decide on? Boost?
Imho, MIT is just fine for a compiler. It's not like a line
of attribution is much to ask when you are getting an entire
compiler fronend for free - in fact, applications should
probably mention the compiler frontend they use in the docs
anyway in case there are incompatibilities, .
There's no attribution in MIT.
Yes, there is no attribution:
https://github.com/roman-d-boiko/SDC/blob/master/LICENCE. It is
very similar to Boost. Actually, I prefer Boost only because it
is slightly more popular and because the D standard library
uses it. I'm perfectly happy with MIT, though, and already
cloned SDC :)
Just interested about motivation behind choosing MIT.
Motivation for Boost would be reducing the number of licenses
that the code author must know. Also, here are some differences
between these licenses, which I consider as Boost advantages:
"The Boost Software License is based upon the MIT license, but
differs from the MIT license in that it:
(i) makes clear that licenses can be granted to organizations as
well as individuals;
(ii) does not require that the license appear with executables or
other binary uses of the library;
(iii) expressly disclaims -- on behalf of the author and
copyright holders of the software only -- the warranty of title
(a warranty that, under the Uniform Commercial Code, is separate
from the warranty of non-infringement)
(iv) does not extend the disclaimer of warranties to licensees,
so that they may, if they choose, undertake such warranties
(e.g., in exchange for payment)."
http://ideas.opensource.org/ticket/45
