www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - deimos libx11 license

reply "luminousone" <rd.hunt gmail.com> writes:
I finely got around to checking the libx11 deimos project for 
updates, i haven't updated in ages, and the github has a LGPL 
license file included with it, is this intentional?, The opengl 
deimos library does not contain this, are all of the deimos 
projects LGPL, or is their some sort of error in this repository 
containing this?
Aug 12 2013
next sibling parent reply Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 05:53:50 luminousone wrote:
 I finely got around to checking the libx11 deimos project for
 updates, i haven't updated in ages, and the github has a LGPL
 license file included with it, is this intentional?, The opengl
 deimos library does not contain this, are all of the deimos
 projects LGPL, or is their some sort of error in this repository
 containing this?

Deimos projects have no relation to each other beyond the fact that they're all in the same group on github. They're simply D bindings to a variety of unrelated libraries which were written in C. So, the license of one project has no bearing on the license of another. Given that they're bindings, I would expect them to have the same license as the original C code. In the case of flac, I outright copied the copyrights from the C code. It really doesn't make much sense IMHO to give the bindings a different license from the original. At best, you might be able to get away with marking them as Boost, but since you'd be using the original library to do anything, you'd still be restricted by its license. But I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know what all of the murky details are. It just seemed simplest to me to copy the copyrights over. As for the opengl deimos project, I don't know what its license is. It's probably listed in the copyright notices in the files. - Jonathan M Davis
Aug 12 2013
parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 8/12/2013 10:41 PM, luminousone wrote:
 The original license of Xlib I am pretty sure is the x11 license, any idea who
 the maintainer of the libx11 deimos project is,

The contributors to each commit are listed on github - you should be able to contact them. The Deimos project files should be nothing more than the declarations necessary to connect D code to the library. I think it's been settled that a list of declarations is not copyrightable, as I recall Linux settled that. Where you start getting into trouble is if you copy the comments and creative elements.
Aug 12 2013
prev sibling parent "luminousone" <rd.hunt gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 13 August 2013 at 05:03:10 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:
 On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 05:53:50 luminousone wrote:
 I finely got around to checking the libx11 deimos project for
 updates, i haven't updated in ages, and the github has a LGPL
 license file included with it, is this intentional?, The opengl
 deimos library does not contain this, are all of the deimos
 projects LGPL, or is their some sort of error in this 
 repository
 containing this?

Deimos projects have no relation to each other beyond the fact that they're all in the same group on github. They're simply D bindings to a variety of unrelated libraries which were written in C. So, the license of one project has no bearing on the license of another. Given that they're bindings, I would expect them to have the same license as the original C code. In the case of flac, I outright copied the copyrights from the C code. It really doesn't make much sense IMHO to give the bindings a different license from the original. At best, you might be able to get away with marking them as Boost, but since you'd be using the original library to do anything, you'd still be restricted by its license. But I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know what all of the murky details are. It just seemed simplest to me to copy the copyrights over. As for the opengl deimos project, I don't know what its license is. It's probably listed in the copyright notices in the files. - Jonathan M Davis

Their are other opengl wrappers with various licenses, I am actually more concered with the libx11 license, I need to be able to statically link without surrendering my code to the lgpl license. The original license of Xlib I am pretty sure is the x11 license, any idea who the maintainer of the libx11 deimos project is, such that I may query them, before I relagate myself to writting a new xlib wrapper? I ask purely because I think their might be an error, not because I am arguing the merits of the license, I just wanna be sure all my ducks are in a row so to speak!
Aug 12 2013