Join GitHub today
Possibility of Boost license #38
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.
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.
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.