www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Phobos licensing and user contributions

reply "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
I've prepared a strawman www.digitalmars.com/d/contributions.html

Comments?
May 21 2004
parent reply DemmeGod <me demmegod.com> writes:
Forgive the ignorance... What makes the GPL incompatible with Phobos? It
seems idealistically similar to option #2.

I assume LGPL is OK?

I'm not sure what a "strawman" is, but thanks for taking the time to put
the page together.

On Fri, 21 May 2004 01:24:40 -0700, Walter wrote:

 I've prepared a strawman www.digitalmars.com/d/contributions.html
 
 Comments?

May 21 2004
next sibling parent reply "Bruno A. Costa" <bruno codata.com.br> writes:
Hi,

DemmeGod wrote:

 Forgive the ignorance... What makes the GPL incompatible with Phobos? It
 seems idealistically similar to option #2.

Make a Library GPL licenced may be problematic because it cannot be linked against closed source programs. Libraries should be licenced under less restrictive rules.
 
 I assume LGPL is OK?

I don't know if it is OK. I think the Boost Project does not accept it. The best way is to use one of the example licences provided on the D page. Now my question: BSD is OK? Bruno.
May 21 2004
next sibling parent Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
Bruno A. Costa wrote:
 Now my question: BSD is OK?

The revised BSD license would be nice. I never much liked the documentation requirements in the original license. Sean
May 21 2004
prev sibling parent resistor AT nospam DOT mac DOT com <resistor_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <c8kpoc$2ljf$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Bruno A. Costa says...
Now my question: BSD is OK?

I can't imagine why it wouldn't be. BSD allows essentially unrestricted use of the code as long as the copyright notice is preserved. I don't think anyone has a problem with the BSD notice standing the Phobos files. Owen
May 21 2004
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
"DemmeGod" <me demmegod.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.05.21.10.44.28.227385 demmegod.com...
 Forgive the ignorance... What makes the GPL incompatible with Phobos? It
 seems idealistically similar to option #2.

GPL would prevent people using D to develop proprietary applications.
May 21 2004
parent reply DemmeGod <me demmegod.com> writes:
It was my understanding that the GPL did permit this, since just linking
against it wouldn't constitute a derived work.  I'd be more like selling a
GPL program as part of a Linux distro... Better to be on the safe side
though, since I'm relatively sure there's no debate that LGPL allows this.

On Fri, 21 May 2004 10:58:55 -0700, Walter wrote:

 
 "DemmeGod" <me demmegod.com> wrote in message
 news:pan.2004.05.21.10.44.28.227385 demmegod.com...
 Forgive the ignorance... What makes the GPL incompatible with Phobos? It
 seems idealistically similar to option #2.

GPL would prevent people using D to develop proprietary applications.

May 21 2004
parent reply Hauke Duden <H.NS.Duden gmx.net> writes:
DemmeGod wrote:
GPL would prevent people using D to develop proprietary applications.

against it wouldn't constitute a derived work. I'd be more like selling a GPL program as part of a Linux distro... Better to be on the safe side though, since I'm relatively sure there's no debate that LGPL allows this.

If you use GPL code in your application then it automatically has to be GPL. There is no way around that. And GPL programs can also not be sold, not even as part of something else. When you buy a Linux package you pay for the documentation, the CD production costs and the support, not the programs on the CD. And last but not least LGPL'ed code also cannot be (statically) linked into closed source applications (sorry ;)). At least not without restrictions: you have to provide a way for the user to replace the LGPLed part with his own version of that part. Usually that means you either have you to provide object files of your application that work with free linkers or you have to incorporate the LGPLed stuff as a DLL / shared object. Walter definitely did the right thing when he demanded a "free for every use" license for Phobos submissions. Anything else would cripple D. Hauke
May 21 2004
parent reply DemmeGod <me demmegod.com> writes:
I would imagine the difference here being statically linked versus
dynamically linked.  Can I use a GPL library in a commercial app if I link
with it dynamically?  Surely.

You are correct, free for any use is a necessity for D.

On Fri, 21 May 2004 21:43:06 +0200, Hauke Duden wrote:

 DemmeGod wrote:
  >>GPL would prevent people using D to develop proprietary applications.
 It was my understanding that the GPL did permit this, since just linking
 against it wouldn't constitute a derived work.  I'd be more like selling
 a GPL program as part of a Linux distro... Better to be on the safe side
 though, since I'm relatively sure there's no debate that LGPL allows
 this.

If you use GPL code in your application then it automatically has to be GPL. There is no way around that. And GPL programs can also not be sold, not even as part of something else. When you buy a Linux package you pay for the documentation, the CD production costs and the support, not the programs on the CD. And last but not least LGPL'ed code also cannot be (statically) linked into closed source applications (sorry ;)). At least not without restrictions: you have to provide a way for the user to replace the LGPLed part with his own version of that part. Usually that means you either have you to provide object files of your application that work with free linkers or you have to incorporate the LGPLed stuff as a DLL / shared object. Walter definitely did the right thing when he demanded a "free for every use" license for Phobos submissions. Anything else would cripple D. Hauke

May 21 2004
next sibling parent Hauke Duden <H.NS.Duden gmx.net> writes:
DemmeGod wrote:
 I would imagine the difference here being statically linked versus
 dynamically linked.  Can I use a GPL library in a commercial app if I link
 with it dynamically?  Surely.

No, you cannot. You can use dynamically linked LGPL libraries, but not GPLed ones. You may provide a mechanism for the user to "plug in" GPLed libraries, but even then you cannot distribute those libraries together with your application. <quote> These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. </quote> The GPL contains a lot of legal babble but the essence is that when you use GPLed code then your application must be free and GPLed. Everything else is just legalese to make sure that this holds up in a court. Hauke
May 21 2004
prev sibling parent =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sigbj=F8rn_Lund_Olsen?= <sigbjorn lundolsen.net> writes:
DemmeGod wrote:

 I would imagine the difference here being statically linked versus
 dynamically linked.  Can I use a GPL library in a commercial app if I link
 with it dynamically?  Surely.

No. The GPL is a viral license. You can't touch a GPLed 'Thing' without automatically placing your own 'Thing' under the GPL. The LGPL allows you to link with it without affecting your own licensing policy.
 You are correct, free for any use is a necessity for D.
 
 On Fri, 21 May 2004 21:43:06 +0200, Hauke Duden wrote:
 
 
DemmeGod wrote:
GPL would prevent people using D to develop proprietary applications.


It was my understanding that the GPL did permit this, since just linking
against it wouldn't constitute a derived work.  I'd be more like selling
a GPL program as part of a Linux distro... Better to be on the safe side
though, since I'm relatively sure there's no debate that LGPL allows
this.

If you use GPL code in your application then it automatically has to be GPL. There is no way around that. And GPL programs can also not be sold, not even as part of something else. When you buy a Linux package you pay for the documentation, the CD production costs and the support, not the programs on the CD. And last but not least LGPL'ed code also cannot be (statically) linked into closed source applications (sorry ;)). At least not without restrictions: you have to provide a way for the user to replace the LGPLed part with his own version of that part. Usually that means you either have you to provide object files of your application that work with free linkers or you have to incorporate the LGPLed stuff as a DLL / shared object. Walter definitely did the right thing when he demanded a "free for every use" license for Phobos submissions. Anything else would cripple D. Hauke


May 21 2004
prev sibling parent =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sigbj=F8rn_Lund_Olsen?= <sigbjorn lundolsen.net> writes:
DemmeGod wrote:

 Forgive the ignorance... What makes the GPL incompatible with Phobos? It
 seems idealistically similar to option #2.
 
 I assume LGPL is OK?

LGPL can't work in the case of templates with closed source development, as you are embedding LGPL code into your closed source application. GCC standard c++ library is under LGPL (iirc) with the exception that it doesn't apply when templates are involved. Cheers, Sigbjørn Lund Olsen
May 21 2004