www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Deimos X11 bindings license question

reply Gary Willoughby <dev nomad.so> writes:
Hi,

A few years ago I forked the Deimos X11 bindings[1] repo to add 
dub support. Since then my repo[2] has received bug fixes and as 
such it's being used in many projects. (Also, in the following 
years dub support was added to the Deimos repo too.) I had a 
question from a developer as to the license of the code in my 
repo. I used the LGPL because the original used it.

My question, is there a legal way to change the current license 
to Boost or MIT or something like? Because this particular 
developer wanted to use it in a project where LGPL was 
incompatible.

[1]: https://github.com/D-Programming-Deimos/libX11
[2]: https://github.com/nomad-software/x11
Sep 03
next sibling parent reply Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:
On Sunday, 3 September 2017 at 16:10:11 UTC, Gary Willoughby 
wrote:
 Hi,

 A few years ago I forked the Deimos X11 bindings[1] repo to add 
 dub support. Since then my repo[2] has received bug fixes and 
 as such it's being used in many projects. (Also, in the 
 following years dub support was added to the Deimos repo too.) 
 I had a question from a developer as to the license of the code 
 in my repo. I used the LGPL because the original used it.

 My question, is there a legal way to change the current license 
 to Boost or MIT or something like? Because this particular 
 developer wanted to use it in a project where LGPL was 
 incompatible.

 [1]: https://github.com/D-Programming-Deimos/libX11
 [2]: https://github.com/nomad-software/x11
When I first created the DerelictSDL bindings, the SDL library was LGPL (though it's since switched to MIT). I contacted Sam Lantinga (the creator of SDL) to get his take on it. He told me that his understanding was that an API binding is not a derivative work and therefore can have a separate license. I got the same answer from others. None of these folks were, or are, lawyers, but they all work for companies that have to be aware of such issues. So I felt as safe as I could be sans legal advice in licensing all of the Derelict packages under Boost. That said, I don't know if the Oracle v. Google case and its precedent that APIs are copyrightable impact this common understanding. After all, it was commonly understood prior to that case that that copyright applies to implementations, not interfaces. Now that the court has established the opposite, does the same hold true for licensing? I don't know of any legal cases that have decided either way.
Sep 03
parent reply Vadim Lopatin <coolreader.org gmail.com> writes:
On Sunday, 3 September 2017 at 16:51:53 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 On Sunday, 3 September 2017 at 16:10:11 UTC, Gary Willoughby 
 wrote:
 Hi,

 A few years ago I forked the Deimos X11 bindings[1] repo to 
 add dub support. Since then my repo[2] has received bug fixes 
 and as such it's being used in many projects. (Also, in the 
 following years dub support was added to the Deimos repo too.) 
 I had a question from a developer as to the license of the 
 code in my repo. I used the LGPL because the original used it.

 My question, is there a legal way to change the current 
 license to Boost or MIT or something like? Because this 
 particular developer wanted to use it in a project where LGPL 
 was incompatible.

 [1]: https://github.com/D-Programming-Deimos/libX11
 [2]: https://github.com/nomad-software/x11
When I first created the DerelictSDL bindings, the SDL library was LGPL (though it's since switched to MIT). I contacted Sam Lantinga (the creator of SDL) to get his take on it. He told me that his understanding was that an API binding is not a derivative work and therefore can have a separate license. I got the same answer from others. None of these folks were, or are, lawyers, but they all work for companies that have to be aware of such issues. So I felt as safe as I could be sans legal advice in licensing all of the Derelict packages under Boost. That said, I don't know if the Oracle v. Google case and its precedent that APIs are copyrightable impact this common understanding. After all, it was commonly understood prior to that case that that copyright applies to implementations, not interfaces. Now that the court has established the opposite, does the same hold true for licensing? I don't know of any legal cases that have decided either way.
It looks like we need to get permission from 17 developers - all x11 binding contributors. Contributors to DUB package nomad-software/x11 nomad-software weltensturm Geod24 MartinNowak BBasile rikkimax Additionally, contributors to Deimos/libX11 growlercab bioinfornatics skilion CyberShadow Faianca Flamaros PhilipWitte edmccard arukuka IanWizard WalterBright
Sep 04
next sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 9/4/2017 10:54 AM, Vadim Lopatin wrote:
 That said, I don't know if the Oracle v. Google case and its precedent that 
 APIs are copyrightable impact this common understanding. After all, it was 
 commonly understood prior to that case that that copyright applies to 
 implementations, not interfaces. Now that the court has established the 
 opposite, does the same hold true for licensing? I don't know of any legal 
 cases that have decided either way.
If APIs do not have copyright protections, then licensing rules do not apply.
 It looks like we need to get permission from 17 developers - all x11 binding 
 contributors.
 
 Additionally, contributors to Deimos/libX11
 
 [...]
 WalterBright
Of course I grant mine.
Sep 05
prev sibling parent reply Vadim Lopatin <coolreader.org gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, 4 September 2017 at 17:54:36 UTC, Vadim Lopatin wrote:
 Contributors to DUB package nomad-software/x11

 nomad-software
 weltensturm
 Geod24
 MartinNowak
 BBasile
 rikkimax

 Additionally, contributors to Deimos/libX11

 growlercab
 bioinfornatics
 skilion
 CyberShadow
 Faianca
 Flamaros
 PhilipWitte
 edmccard
 arukuka
 IanWizard
 WalterBright
Looks like recreating of binding from scratch based on C headers could be faster than getting confirmation from all of contributors.
Sep 11
next sibling parent reply rikki cattermole <rikki cattermole.co.nz> writes:
On 11/09/2017 1:36 PM, Vadim Lopatin wrote:
 On Monday, 4 September 2017 at 17:54:36 UTC, Vadim Lopatin wrote:
 Contributors to DUB package nomad-software/x11

 nomad-software
 weltensturm
 Geod24
 MartinNowak
 BBasile
 rikkimax

 Additionally, contributors to Deimos/libX11

 growlercab
 bioinfornatics
 skilion
 CyberShadow
 Faianca
 Flamaros
 PhilipWitte
 edmccard
 arukuka
 IanWizard
 WalterBright
Looks like recreating of binding from scratch based on C headers could be faster than getting confirmation from all of contributors.
Needs more work but... https://github.com/Devisualization/spew/tree/master/src/utils/ f/spew/bindings/x11 yeah.
Sep 11
parent reply Vadim Lopatin <coolreader.org gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, 11 September 2017 at 13:41:39 UTC, rikki cattermole 
wrote:
 Needs more work but... 
 https://github.com/Devisualization/spew/tree/master/src/utils/
f/spew/bindings/x11 yeah.
Have you created this binding yourself w/o using of Deimos code?
Sep 11
parent rikki cattermole <rikki cattermole.co.nz> writes:
On 11/09/2017 2:58 PM, Vadim Lopatin wrote:
 On Monday, 11 September 2017 at 13:41:39 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
 Needs more work but... 
 https://github.com/Devisualization/spew/tree/master/src/utils/
f/spew/bindings/x11 
 yeah.
Have you created this binding yourself w/o using of Deimos code?
Indeed. Some of the files might be a bit mixed up and some others missing. But steal if you wish. I have no claim to it as far as I'm concerned. Its also a bit untested without a loader.
Sep 11
prev sibling parent reply Basile B. <b2.temp gmx.com> writes:
On Monday, 11 September 2017 at 12:36:50 UTC, Vadim Lopatin wrote:
 On Monday, 4 September 2017 at 17:54:36 UTC, Vadim Lopatin 
 wrote:
 Contributors to DUB package nomad-software/x11

 nomad-software
 weltensturm
 Geod24
 MartinNowak
 BBasile
 rikkimax

 Additionally, contributors to Deimos/libX11

 growlercab
 bioinfornatics
 skilion
 CyberShadow
 Faianca
 Flamaros
 PhilipWitte
 edmccard
 arukuka
 IanWizard
 WalterBright
Looks like recreating of binding from scratch based on C headers could be faster than getting confirmation from all of contributors.
We solved the issue **in less than 24 hours**: https://github.com/nomad-software/x11/blob/master/LICENSE Most of the "code owners" agreed to change the license. The list of pseudo has been really useful to ping everybody in one shot. The Social Network aspect of Github has helped much i believe.
Sep 12
parent reply Vadim Lopatin <coolreader.org gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 12 September 2017 at 17:30:42 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
 On Monday, 11 September 2017 at 12:36:50 UTC, Vadim Lopatin 
 wrote:
 On Monday, 4 September 2017 at 17:54:36 UTC, Vadim Lopatin 
 wrote:
 Contributors to DUB package nomad-software/x11

 nomad-software
 weltensturm
 Geod24
 MartinNowak
 BBasile
 rikkimax

 Additionally, contributors to Deimos/libX11

 growlercab
 bioinfornatics
 ....
 IanWizard
 WalterBright
Looks like recreating of binding from scratch based on C headers could be faster than getting confirmation from all of contributors.
We solved the issue **in less than 24 hours**: https://github.com/nomad-software/x11/blob/master/LICENSE Most of the "code owners" agreed to change the license. The list of pseudo has been really useful to ping everybody in one shot. The Social Network aspect of Github has helped much i believe.
Cool! Very fast! I didn't believe it can be done. DlangUI does not violate license anymore :)
Sep 12
parent reply Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On 9/13/17 12:27 AM, Vadim Lopatin wrote:
 On Tuesday, 12 September 2017 at 17:30:42 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
 We solved the issue **in less than 24 hours**:

 https://github.com/nomad-software/x11/blob/master/LICENSE

 Most of the "code owners" agreed to change the license.
 The list of pseudo has been really useful to ping everybody in one shot.
 The Social Network aspect of Github has helped much i believe.
Cool! Very fast! I didn't believe it can be done. DlangUI does not violate license anymore :)
Shouldn't the bindings be licensed identical to the actual library code? I mean the header license isn't as important as the actual code license. And I thought it was MIT license for X11? -Steve
Sep 13
parent reply Adam D. Ruppe <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 13 September 2017 at 15:15:11 UTC, Steven 
Schveighoffer wrote:
 Shouldn't the bindings be licensed identical to the actual 
 library code?
The library code isn't being distributed, so I don't think it matters.
Sep 13
parent reply Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On 9/13/17 11:48 AM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
 On Wednesday, 13 September 2017 at 15:15:11 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer 
 wrote:
 Shouldn't the bindings be licensed identical to the actual library code?
The library code isn't being distributed, so I don't think it matters.
Technically no. You can let the user of the bindings do his own research and find out that libx11 really isn't Boost licensed, and that he has to pay careful attention to what the *actual* license for libX11 is. Note BTW, the C headers are included in the distribution, and those are NOT boost licensed. I'm not a lawyer, so I have no idea the compatibility implications between the two. Or you could just inform the user of the discrepancy, and let him avoid wasted time. Or just license the same as the original library. When I first read this change of license from GPL to Boost, I thought there was a significant problem here. But it's much more innocuous, since neither the real library is GPL nor the bindings need to be GPL. However, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me to use boost rather than the X11 license. In any case, consider this as somewhat of a warning -- try to license your bindings the same as the original library, or you may cause significant problems for your users unnecessarily. -Steve
Sep 13
parent reply Gary Willoughby <dev nomad.so> writes:
On Wednesday, 13 September 2017 at 17:55:43 UTC, Steven 
Schveighoffer wrote:
 Note BTW, the C headers are included in the distribution, and 
 those are NOT boost licensed. I'm not a lawyer, so I have no 
 idea the compatibility implications between the two.
Thanks for the heads up, they've now been removed.
Sep 13
parent reply vondes <vondes yahoo.com> writes:
How we can use it in https://mobile-phone-tracker.org mobile 
recorder on Android?
Oct 21
parent Gary Willoughby <dev nomad.so> writes:
On Saturday, 21 October 2017 at 08:14:01 UTC, vondes wrote:
 How we can use it in https://mobile-phone-tracker.org mobile 
 recorder on Android?
That doesn't look like a very ethical program.
Oct 23
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Jonathan Marler <johnnymarler gmail.com> writes:
On Sunday, 3 September 2017 at 16:10:11 UTC, Gary Willoughby 
wrote:
 Hi,

 A few years ago I forked the Deimos X11 bindings[1] repo to add 
 dub support. Since then my repo[2] has received bug fixes and 
 as such it's being used in many projects. (Also, in the 
 following years dub support was added to the Deimos repo too.) 
 I had a question from a developer as to the license of the code 
 in my repo. I used the LGPL because the original used it.

 My question, is there a legal way to change the current license 
 to Boost or MIT or something like? Because this particular 
 developer wanted to use it in a project where LGPL was 
 incompatible.

 [1]: https://github.com/D-Programming-Deimos/libX11
 [2]: https://github.com/nomad-software/x11
+1 for getting away from the GPL. Though I understand the sentiment coming from the FSF, the practical consequences of using GPL licenses is restricting the users of your library/application. By going to a non-restrictive license like you suggest (Boost/MIT), it will allow the code to be used by anyone, instead of just those who conform to the GPL. I'm assuming this is why you're trying to move to another license, I thought I would explicitly state this in the thread so as to educate others on the reasons why they may or may not want to use the GPL in their own projects.
Sep 05
parent reply bachmeier <no spam.net> writes:
On Tuesday, 5 September 2017 at 16:32:47 UTC, Jonathan Marler 
wrote:
 On Sunday, 3 September 2017 at 16:10:11 UTC, Gary Willoughby 
 wrote:
 Hi,

 A few years ago I forked the Deimos X11 bindings[1] repo to 
 add dub support. Since then my repo[2] has received bug fixes 
 and as such it's being used in many projects. (Also, in the 
 following years dub support was added to the Deimos repo too.) 
 I had a question from a developer as to the license of the 
 code in my repo. I used the LGPL because the original used it.

 My question, is there a legal way to change the current 
 license to Boost or MIT or something like? Because this 
 particular developer wanted to use it in a project where LGPL 
 was incompatible.

 [1]: https://github.com/D-Programming-Deimos/libX11
 [2]: https://github.com/nomad-software/x11
+1 for getting away from the GPL. Though I understand the sentiment coming from the FSF, the practical consequences of using GPL licenses is restricting the users of your library/application. By going to a non-restrictive license like you suggest (Boost/MIT), it will allow the code to be used by anyone, instead of just those who conform to the GPL. I'm assuming this is why you're trying to move to another license, I thought I would explicitly state this in the thread so as to educate others on the reasons why they may or may not want to use the GPL in their own projects.
But LGPL and GPL are very different licenses. Also, while I don't have time to participate in yet another debate on the topic, the GPL does not in any way restrict users. Using GPL code means you promise *not* to impose restrictions. Feel free to use whatever license you want, but please do not make inaccurate claims about them.
Sep 05
next sibling parent reply jmh530 <john.michael.hall gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 5 September 2017 at 18:12:23 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
 But LGPL and GPL are very different licenses. Also, while I 
 don't have time to participate in yet another debate on the 
 topic, the GPL does not in any way restrict users. Using GPL 
 code means you promise *not* to impose restrictions. Feel free 
 to use whatever license you want, but please do not make 
 inaccurate claims about them.
I suppose it depends on how you define user. Someone who simply uses GPL code without distributing it would not face restrictions. However, if you use GPL code in a project and want to distribute it, then you also have to license that project as GPL.
Sep 05
next sibling parent Adam D. Ruppe <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 5 September 2017 at 18:23:00 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
 However, if you use GPL code in a project and want to 
 distribute it, then you also have to license that project as 
 GPL.
Which just means your users also promise not to put restrictions on their users. It is like the 13th amendment in the US constitution.
Sep 05
prev sibling parent reply Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> writes:
On Tuesday, September 05, 2017 18:23:00 jmh530 via Digitalmars-d wrote:
 On Tuesday, 5 September 2017 at 18:12:23 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
 But LGPL and GPL are very different licenses. Also, while I
 don't have time to participate in yet another debate on the
 topic, the GPL does not in any way restrict users. Using GPL
 code means you promise *not* to impose restrictions. Feel free
 to use whatever license you want, but please do not make
 inaccurate claims about them.
I suppose it depends on how you define user. Someone who simply uses GPL code without distributing it would not face restrictions. However, if you use GPL code in a project and want to distribute it, then you also have to license that project as GPL.
The GPL ensures that code is always out in the open and available by restricting what the folks working on it can do with it and with any code that would get used with it. If you're using the GPL, you can't keep your code private. You're forced to make it and anything that you link to it available. The goal is to ensure that folks using any products built with that code have access to the code and can do what they want with it. It's taking freedom away from the developers while trying to ensure the freedom of those who use it. The LGPL is less restrictive in that it can be linked against code that isn't GPL or LGPL without forcing that code to be made available, but ultimately, the code that is LGPL still forces you to make any changes available and does not allow the developers the freedom to do what they want with it. On the other hand, licenses like the BSD licenses or Boost try and ensure the freedom of the developers to do what they want with with the code. They can put it in proprietary products and muck with it however they like and don't have to provide any of their changes to anyone. At most, they have to admit to using the code by distributing the copyright with the binary (in the case of the BSD licenses anyway - Boost doesn't even require that). So, the developers have full freedom, but the users of the products have zero guarantee that they'll have access to any of that source code or the ability to change the code in the product. Ultimately, it's about who you want to give freedom to, and how you want to restrict people. Neither group of licenses grants full freedom, because by giving freedom to one group, you take it away from the other. If you go with a BSD or Boost license, you're maximizing who can use your software, but you have no guarantees that any improvements will be made available, whereas the (L)GPL does guarantee that those improvements will be made available (assuming that folks behave themselves and follow the license anyway), but that means that there are a lot of projects that can't use your software, because those restrictions are unacceptable to those developing it. Personally, I think that the Boost or BSD-type licenses are ultimately better, but there's a good argument to be had that the (L)GPL has done a lot of good too. And ultimately, which is most appropriate for your software depends on what your goals are. - Jonathan M Davis
Sep 05
parent reply Joakim <dlang joakim.fea.st> writes:
On Tuesday, 5 September 2017 at 22:25:57 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:
 If you go with a BSD or Boost license, you're maximizing who 
 can use your software, but you have no guarantees that any 
 improvements will be made available, whereas the (L)GPL does 
 guarantee that those improvements will be made available 
 (assuming that folks behave themselves and follow the license 
 anyway), but that means that there are a lot of projects that 
 can't use your software, because those restrictions are 
 unacceptable to those developing it.
I'll also note that if a developer uses GPL software on the server, he doesn't have to give any source to users who access apps on the server remotely. For example, Google uses a linux kernel with proprietary modifications on a million servers running their search engine, yet my understanding is that they have not made most of those modifications available, as they're not required to under the GPL. By contrast, every Android vendor has to release the source for their linux kernel. It's not a coincidence that GPL software took off on the sever, until and except for Android's kernel. That's why some devs then came up with the Affero GPL, to close the server loophole, though it hasn't been used for linux: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License
Sep 05
parent reply Brad Roberts via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> writes:
On 9/5/2017 10:19 PM, Joakim via Digitalmars-d wrote:
 I'll also note that if a developer uses GPL software on the server, he 
 doesn't have to give any source to users who access apps on the server 
 remotely.  For example, Google uses a linux kernel with proprietary 
 modifications on a million servers running their search engine, yet my 
 understanding is that they have not made most of those modifications 
 available, as they're not required to under the GPL.  By contrast, 
 every Android vendor has to release the source for their linux 
 kernel.  It's not a coincidence that GPL software took off on the 
 sever, until and except for Android's kernel.
Your understanding is somewhat flawed.  Google is a major contributor to the linux kernel as well as quite a few other projects.  They are extraordinary members of the open source community and the internet at large.  They have one of the most proactive security teams out there as another example. Please, do a little research.  While there's a lot to dislike about google and their public facing services, they offset that quite a bit in my eyes through how their engineering staff behaves.
Sep 05
parent Joakim <dlang joakim.fea.st> writes:
On Wednesday, 6 September 2017 at 06:43:45 UTC, Brad Roberts 
wrote:
 On 9/5/2017 10:19 PM, Joakim via Digitalmars-d wrote:
 I'll also note that if a developer uses GPL software on the 
 server, he doesn't have to give any source to users who access 
 apps on the server remotely.  For example, Google uses a linux 
 kernel with proprietary modifications on a million servers 
 running their search engine, yet my understanding is that they 
 have not made most of those modifications available, as 
 they're not required to under the GPL.  By contrast, every 
 Android vendor has to release the source for their linux 
 kernel.  It's not a coincidence that GPL software took off on 
 the sever, until and except for Android's kernel.
Your understanding is somewhat flawed.  Google is a major contributor to the linux kernel as well as quite a few other projects.  They are extraordinary members of the open source community and the internet at large.  They have one of the most proactive security teams out there as another example. Please, do a little research.  While there's a lot to dislike about google and their public facing services, they offset that quite a bit in my eyes through how their engineering staff behaves.
My understanding is based on research, specifically this lwn article from 8 years ago, which says they didn't work with the kernel community much back when they were mostly running linux on servers: https://lwn.net/Articles/357658/ Of course, as I noted, they've since had to release the source to the linux kernels they use for Android, because the GPL requires it. I haven't seen anything about their releasing much of their modifications to their server kernels, please share your research if you know more about that.
Sep 06
prev sibling parent Jonathan Marler <johnnymarler gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 5 September 2017 at 18:12:23 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
 ...the GPL does not in any way restrict users. Using GPL code 
 means you promise *not* to impose restrictions...
Reading things like this is much more humorous when you have a solid background in logic and contradiction. As for you bachmeier, I hope you don't sprain your neck trying to find all the things that must go right over your head.
Sep 05
prev sibling parent reply Kagamin <spam here.lot> writes:
On Sunday, 3 September 2017 at 16:10:11 UTC, Gary Willoughby 
wrote:
 My question, is there a legal way to change the current license 
 to Boost or MIT or something like? Because this particular 
 developer wanted to use it in a project where LGPL was 
 incompatible.

 [1]: https://github.com/D-Programming-Deimos/libX11
 [2]: https://github.com/nomad-software/x11
I thought x11 has MIT flavor license. Where LGPL comes from? If x11 is LGPL licensed header license doesn't affect anything: application of LGPL is determined by linking. Though GPL and/or LGPL have an exception for system libraries.
Sep 06
parent reply Vadim Lopatin <coolreader.org gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 6 September 2017 at 09:23:33 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
 On Sunday, 3 September 2017 at 16:10:11 UTC, Gary Willoughby 
 wrote:
 My question, is there a legal way to change the current 
 license to Boost or MIT or something like? Because this 
 particular developer wanted to use it in a project where LGPL 
 was incompatible.

 [1]: https://github.com/D-Programming-Deimos/libX11
 [2]: https://github.com/nomad-software/x11
I thought x11 has MIT flavor license. Where LGPL comes from? If x11 is LGPL licensed header license doesn't affect anything: application of LGPL is determined by linking. Though GPL and/or LGPL have an exception for system libraries.
Under LGPL, Deimos libX11 has been released. For binding library, LGPL is actually the same as GPL since it's linked statically. Unlike LGPL for which you can create closed source apps if library is linked dynamically, the only way to use derelict binding with LGPL license is GPL compatible license for your application.
Sep 06
parent reply Kagamin <spam here.lot> writes:
On Wednesday, 6 September 2017 at 10:05:18 UTC, Vadim Lopatin 
wrote:
 Unlike LGPL for which you can create closed source apps if 
 library is linked dynamically, the only way to use derelict 
 binding with LGPL license is GPL compatible license for your 
 application.
https://github.com/D-Programming-Deimos/libX11/blob/master/dub.json it doesn't look like it has any reference to derelict.
Sep 06
parent Vadim Lopatin <coolreader.org gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 6 September 2017 at 10:14:02 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
 On Wednesday, 6 September 2017 at 10:05:18 UTC, Vadim Lopatin 
 wrote:
 Unlike LGPL for which you can create closed source apps if 
 library is linked dynamically, the only way to use derelict 
 binding with LGPL license is GPL compatible license for your 
 application.
https://github.com/D-Programming-Deimos/libX11/blob/master/dub.json it doesn't look like it has any reference to derelict.
Sorry, not a derelict, just header files translation as DUB package in https://github.com/nomad-software/x11
Sep 06