New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Possibility of Boost license #38

Closed
Downchuck opened this Issue Mar 14, 2015 · 8 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
4 participants
@Downchuck

Downchuck commented Mar 14, 2015

In keeping with the standards among D libraries, could this project be dual licensed with a Boost license?

@msoucy

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@msoucy

msoucy Mar 14, 2015

Owner

Relicensing would require contacting the other contributors - I'm taking a look at licenses and the logistics of dual-licensing.

Owner

msoucy commented Mar 14, 2015

Relicensing would require contacting the other contributors - I'm taking a look at licenses and the logistics of dual-licensing.

@msoucy

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@msoucy

msoucy Mar 18, 2015

Owner

@Kelet @MartinNowak @cporter

While I'm looking at licensing and the licenses involved, how do you all feel about either dual-licensing or changing the license to the Boost Software License?

I don't feel that the Boost license is really a standard among D libraries, from a random sample of the Dub repository, but the Boost license itself does appeal to me.

Owner

msoucy commented Mar 18, 2015

@Kelet @MartinNowak @cporter

While I'm looking at licensing and the licenses involved, how do you all feel about either dual-licensing or changing the license to the Boost Software License?

I don't feel that the Boost license is really a standard among D libraries, from a random sample of the Dub repository, but the Boost license itself does appeal to me.

@MartinNowak

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@MartinNowak

MartinNowak Mar 19, 2015

Contributor

MIT, Boost and BSD-3 are all copyfree http://copyfree.org/standard/licenses, so I don't see a point in changing this. I don't care though, so do what you think makes sense.

Contributor

MartinNowak commented Mar 19, 2015

MIT, Boost and BSD-3 are all copyfree http://copyfree.org/standard/licenses, so I don't see a point in changing this. I don't care though, so do what you think makes sense.

@Kelet

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Kelet

Kelet Mar 19, 2015

Contributor

I have the same thoughts as @MartinNowak

Contributor

Kelet commented Mar 19, 2015

I have the same thoughts as @MartinNowak

@msoucy

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@msoucy

msoucy Mar 19, 2015

Owner

The main difference between BSD-3 and Boost (that I can see) is that Boost doesn't require binary distributions that use the code (ex: executables that contain dproto-generated code) to have the license attached. This would reduce attribution in commercial software, but make it easier for users to remain compliant with the license.

Owner

msoucy commented Mar 19, 2015

The main difference between BSD-3 and Boost (that I can see) is that Boost doesn't require binary distributions that use the code (ex: executables that contain dproto-generated code) to have the license attached. This would reduce attribution in commercial software, but make it easier for users to remain compliant with the license.

@msoucy msoucy modified the milestone: v1.3.0 Apr 1, 2015

@msoucy

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@msoucy

msoucy Apr 12, 2015

Owner

Sorry @Downchuck, but I don't see enough of a reason to dual license...

Owner

msoucy commented Apr 12, 2015

Sorry @Downchuck, but I don't see enough of a reason to dual license...

@msoucy msoucy closed this Apr 12, 2015

@msoucy msoucy removed the ready label Apr 12, 2015

@Downchuck

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Downchuck

Downchuck Apr 23, 2015

I disagree: D standard libraries are Boost licensed.

An application written in standard D, using dproto, would now have license requirements in release documents -- it otherwise would not. dproto is like the D standard libraries (phobos), a utility library with a specific function (serialization).

The issue I have with the license is about the target audience: vibe.d is a great example of maintaining an attribution license, as it is run on the server side. pegged is a great example of using boost "Pegged is released with the Boost license (like most D projects)" as it is a library intended to be used to generate client-side code.

There is very little value in requiring that developers maintain a license list for end-users who have no programming knowledge (or any idea what the language "D" is).

Meanwhile, there is a cost in requiring developers to clear a new license and to ensure that the license is properly packaged so that end users can access that license in a README document or other help format form.

-Charles

Downchuck commented Apr 23, 2015

I disagree: D standard libraries are Boost licensed.

An application written in standard D, using dproto, would now have license requirements in release documents -- it otherwise would not. dproto is like the D standard libraries (phobos), a utility library with a specific function (serialization).

The issue I have with the license is about the target audience: vibe.d is a great example of maintaining an attribution license, as it is run on the server side. pegged is a great example of using boost "Pegged is released with the Boost license (like most D projects)" as it is a library intended to be used to generate client-side code.

There is very little value in requiring that developers maintain a license list for end-users who have no programming knowledge (or any idea what the language "D" is).

Meanwhile, there is a cost in requiring developers to clear a new license and to ensure that the license is properly packaged so that end users can access that license in a README document or other help format form.

-Charles

@msoucy

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@msoucy

msoucy Apr 26, 2015

Owner

That is actually fairly convincing... Reopening so I can do it when I'm not on my phone

Owner

msoucy commented Apr 26, 2015

That is actually fairly convincing... Reopening so I can do it when I'm not on my phone

@msoucy msoucy reopened this Apr 26, 2015

@msoucy msoucy closed this in 749f9ae May 1, 2015

Downchuck pushed a commit to Downchuck/dproto that referenced this issue May 18, 2015

Relicensing
Closes msoucy#38

Rationale is discussed there, and there have been no contributors who
are against the change

Downchuck pushed a commit to Downchuck/dproto that referenced this issue May 18, 2015

Relicensing
Closes msoucy#38

Rationale is discussed there, and there have been no contributors who
are against the change
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment