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


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



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



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



 
 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.


 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
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

 
 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