DemmeGod wrote:

> Forgive the ignorance... What makes the GPL incompatible with Phobos? It
> seems idealistically similar to option #2.
> 
> 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

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
> 
>