Re: Licences issues with d runtime
Robert Jacques wrote: This is a serious legal obligation which isn't in the primary DMD licence or readme. Would it be possible for the licence in druntime to be unified? (If not, a more prominent notice would be appreciated) Sean is working on fixing this.
Re: Licences issues with d runtime
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 02:16:39 -0400, Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote: Robert Jacques wrote: This is a serious legal obligation which isn't in the primary DMD licence or readme. Would it be possible for the licence in druntime to be unified? (If not, a more prominent notice would be appreciated) Sean is working on fixing this. You might also wish to consider changing files 'placed into the Public Domain'. While valid in most of the 1st world, 'Public Domain' isn't mentioned in the copyright law of many countries. Notably in Japan, the term copyright-free is preferred as public domain is ambiguity and may carry restrictions. That said, at worst these files should be covered by the root licence.txt. (Source: wikipedia)
Re: Licences issues with d runtime
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 02:16:39 -0400, Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote: Robert Jacques wrote: This is a serious legal obligation which isn't in the primary DMD licence or readme. Would it be possible for the licence in druntime to be unified? (If not, a more prominent notice would be appreciated) Sean is working on fixing this. Thanks :)
Re: Licences issues with d runtime
Robert Jacques wrote: Deep in the 'eliminate writeln et comp?' thread there's been a recent discussion about the confusion over Tango licences. In particular, regarding the desire that the standard library shouldn't require binary 'copies' (a.k.a. every single executable compiled using it) from publishing/containing the library's licence. (And specifically, trying to understand the AFL) Anyways, I recently checked D2, and about half the druntime files are in BSD (which require publication) while the other half are in the zlib/libpng/Phobos licence (which doesn't). I had thought that the publication requirement was simply for binary redistributions of the library itself, and that apps which simply used the library were exempt. However, I've been meaning to change the license to something more permissive anyway. This will probably happen before the next DMD release.
Licences issues with d runtime
Deep in the 'eliminate writeln et comp?' thread there's been a recent discussion about the confusion over Tango licences. In particular, regarding the desire that the standard library shouldn't require binary 'copies' (a.k.a. every single executable compiled using it) from publishing/containing the library's licence. (And specifically, trying to understand the AFL) Anyways, I recently checked D2, and about half the druntime files are in BSD (which require publication) while the other half are in the zlib/libpng/Phobos licence (which doesn't). This is a serious legal obligation which isn't in the primary DMD licence or readme. Would it be possible for the licence in druntime to be unified? (If not, a more prominent notice would be appreciated) Thank you.
