www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Std. Lib and Binary Attribution

reply dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> writes:
One possible way to mitigate licensing issues for the std. lib would be to
have std.* be exclusively Boost licensed, but allow code with slightly less
permissive licenses (BSD, etc.) under std.extra.*.  This would allow people to
know that they don't have to worry about licensing at all as long as they
stick to std.*, but if they need a little more power and are either working on
an internal project or don't mind sticking some attributions in their code,
they can use std.extra.

Walter is absolutely right that it would be very bad to require an attribution
just to write a word count program or something simple like that.  However,
there's lots of good BSD-licensed code out there that would only be used in
larger projects where sticking attributions in a LICENSE.txt file is really
not a big deal.  We could even make a pre-made attribution file for users of
std.extra that already has all relevant attributions in it.  Furthermore,
std.extra would be greppable if you wanted to avoid the attribution requirement.

Does this sound like a reasonable compromise or is the "no attribution in std.
lib. code" an absolute non-negotiable?
Nov 13 2009
next sibling parent reply "Robert Jacques" <sandford jhu.edu> writes:
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:11:44 -0500, dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> wrote:

 One possible way to mitigate licensing issues for the std. lib would be  
 to
 have std.* be exclusively Boost licensed, but allow code with slightly  
 less
 permissive licenses (BSD, etc.) under std.extra.*.  This would allow  
 people to
 know that they don't have to worry about licensing at all as long as they
 stick to std.*, but if they need a little more power and are either  
 working on
 an internal project or don't mind sticking some attributions in their  
 code,
 they can use std.extra.

 Walter is absolutely right that it would be very bad to require an  
 attribution
 just to write a word count program or something simple like that.   
 However,
 there's lots of good BSD-licensed code out there that would only be used  
 in
 larger projects where sticking attributions in a LICENSE.txt file is  
 really
 not a big deal.  We could even make a pre-made attribution file for  
 users of
 std.extra that already has all relevant attributions in it.  Furthermore,
 std.extra would be greppable if you wanted to avoid the attribution  
 requirement.

 Does this sound like a reasonable compromise or is the "no attribution  
 in std.
 lib. code" an absolute non-negotiable?

The problem is that if std.extra gets statically linked in (i.e. in the normal manner), then you'd have to include the license, even if you don't use the library.
Nov 13 2009
parent BCS <none anon.com> writes:
Hello Robert,

 The problem is that if std.extra gets statically linked in (i.e. in
 the  normal manner), then you'd have to include the license, even if
 you don't  use the library.
 

phobos.lib and phobos_extra.lib ????
Nov 16 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 02:54:53PM -0500, Robert Jacques wrote:
 The problem is that if std.extra gets statically linked in (i.e. in the  
 normal manner), then you'd have to include the license, even if you don't  
 use the library.

If it isn't referenced though, shouldn't the linker strip it out of the final binary? -- Adam D. Ruppe http://arsdnet.net
Nov 13 2009
prev sibling parent "Robert Jacques" <sandford jhu.edu> writes:
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:13:38 -0500, Adam D. Ruppe  
<destructionator gmail.com> wrote:

 On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 02:54:53PM -0500, Robert Jacques wrote:
 The problem is that if std.extra gets statically linked in (i.e. in the
 normal manner), then you'd have to include the license, even if you  
 don't
 use the library.

If it isn't referenced though, shouldn't the linker strip it out of the final binary?

Some stuff is always included, like module constructors, unittests, global variables, etc.
Nov 13 2009