Kirk McDonald wrote:
> Don Clugston wrote:
>> Lutger wrote:
>>> - Better compiler time error messages. I've included Don Clugston's meta.nameof for this, I'm sure it has an open source license but I couldn't find exactly which one.
>>
>> BSD. I'm working on an update which will cope with all situations (the one in DDL/meta doesn't work with local variables (it wasn't possible prior to 0.172), and fails in some (relatively obscure) circumstances).
> 
> Your Nameof module is turning out to be exceedingly useful. Pyd also uses it. 

Delighted to hear it.

> I have some license questions/requests:
> 
> I would appreciate it if (in the future) you included the text of the license at the top of the source files (in a plain comment, not a doc-comment).

I really don't want to include the full text of the license. Would a link suffice?

> Second, Pyd itself is released under the MIT license. If Wikipedia's rundown of the differences between the two is correct, then to comply with the BSD license on Nameof I just need to include "meta.Nameof and meta.Demangle are copyright (C) 2005-2006 Don Clugston" in Pyd's docs. Is this correct?

Yes.

Really, all I want to do with the license is to provide reassurance that there will never be legal issues associated with the code. From what I've heard, BSD/MIT licenses are better than public domain for this.

Don Clugston wrote:
> Kirk McDonald wrote:
>> I would appreciate it if (in the future) you included the text of the license at the top of the source files (in a plain comment, not a doc-comment).
> 
> I really don't want to include the full text of the license. Would a link suffice?
> 

Probably. If you look through the Pyd sources, you'll see that all of them include the text of the MIT license at the top. Putting the actual text of the license in there makes it that much more explicit. It's just a style thing, though, so I won't stress too much about it.

>> Second, Pyd itself is released under the MIT license. If Wikipedia's rundown of the differences between the two is correct, then to comply with the BSD license on Nameof I just need to include "meta.Nameof and meta.Demangle are copyright (C) 2005-2006 Don Clugston" in Pyd's docs. Is this correct?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Really, all I want to do with the license is to provide reassurance that there will never be legal issues associated with the code. From what I've heard, BSD/MIT licenses are better than public domain for this.

I agree. It's why Pyd is MIT licensed. :-)

-- 
Kirk McDonald
Pyd: Wrapping Python with D
http://pyd.dsource.org

Kirk McDonald wrote:
> Don Clugston wrote:
>> Kirk McDonald wrote:
>>> I would appreciate it if (in the future) you included the text of the license at the top of the source files (in a plain comment, not a doc-comment).
>>
>> I really don't want to include the full text of the license. Would a link suffice?
>>
> 
> Probably. If you look through the Pyd sources, you'll see that all of them include the text of the MIT license at the top. Putting the actual text of the license in there makes it that much more explicit. It's just a style thing, though, so I won't stress too much about it.
> 
>>> Second, Pyd itself is released under the MIT license. If Wikipedia's rundown of the differences between the two is correct, then to comply with the BSD license on Nameof I just need to include "meta.Nameof and meta.Demangle are copyright (C) 2005-2006 Don Clugston" in Pyd's docs. Is this correct?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> Really, all I want to do with the license is to provide reassurance that there will never be legal issues associated with the code. From what I've heard, BSD/MIT licenses are better than public domain for this.
> 
> I agree. It's why Pyd is MIT licensed. :-)
> 

"Cos I don't want to be a container/Or a bastard with a ten page disclaimer/But these monsters..."
-- 
http://www.sigitas.com/artist_s/something_for_kate_lyrics/monsters_lyrics.html

Don Clugston wrote:
> Really, all I want to do with the license is to provide reassurance that there will never be legal issues associated with the code. From what I've heard, BSD/MIT licenses are better than public domain for this.

What is the problem with public domain?
Can GPL software use BSD licensed components? Some sites claim it can't because of the advertising clause, but then there are a couple of BSD licenses.

Lutger wrote:
> Don Clugston wrote:
>> Really, all I want to do with the license is to provide reassurance that there will never be legal issues associated with the code. From what I've heard, BSD/MIT licenses are better than public domain for this.
> 
> What is the problem with public domain?
> Can GPL software use BSD licensed components? Some sites claim it can't because of the advertising clause, but then there are a couple of BSD licenses.

Those sites are talking about the _old_ BSD license. The new BSD license is identical except that problematic clause is removed.
IIRC, Linux contains quite a bit of (new) BSD-licensed code, and is GPL.

Lutger wrote:

> What is the problem with public domain?

To quote Lawrence Rosen:

“... there is no mechanism for waiving a copyright that merely subsists, and there is no accepted way to dedicate an original work of authorship to the public domain before the copyright term for that work expires. A license is the only recognized way to authorize others to undertake the authors’ exclusive copyright rights.”

_Open Source Licensing / Software Freedom and Intellectual Property Law_
Lawrence Rosen
p.74 http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch05.pdf


Best regards,
Bastiaan.

Lutger wrote:
> I've uploaded a new version using the features of D since 0.173. Perhaps it is useful to those who want return values and other callable types than delegates from objects in their signals:
> 
> http://lutger.ifastnet.com
<snip>

Not sure if anybody is using it, but there was a bug fixed (array bounds error of all things...)