On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 15:56:40 UTC, Claude wrote:
> On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 15:15:14 UTC, Ignacious wrote:
>> On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 12:01:22 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
>>> This is not the proper place to blog about software license preferences or to make unsubstantiated accusations against an organization you don't like. There are other sites for that.
>>
>> So, what is up with all the wanna be Nazi's running around today? Did Hitler come out of retirement??
>
> Retirement?? I thought he commited suicide...

Of course that is what *they* want you to believe. He was simply biding his time while his little Nazi army infiltrated every aspect of human life. The goal is obfuscation and negativity. They realized they couldn't win on firepower so they moved on to more powerful psychological warfare tactics.

On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 15:19:57 +0000, Ignacious wrote:
> Yes, but D uses mostly bindings and if any of those bindings use it then It effects the D program that uses it. Since many of the bindings are written in C/C++ one can expect that many of them use the GPL license.

LGPL is much more common, and LGPL isn't a problem when you distribute by source. It *is* a problem with static linking with binary distributions (which is the default for D).

This is not a new issue. Software licensing is a well understood, well publicized concern. It doesn't merit alarmism.

On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 19:30:40 UTC, Chris Wright wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 15:19:57 +0000, Ignacious wrote:
>> Yes, but D uses mostly bindings and if any of those bindings use it then It effects the D program that uses it. Since many of the bindings are written in C/C++ one can expect that many of them use the GPL license.
>
> LGPL is much more common, and LGPL isn't a problem when you distribute by source. It *is* a problem with static linking with binary distributions (which is the default for D).
>
> This is not a new issue. Software licensing is a well understood, well publicized concern. It doesn't merit alarmism.

Sure it does! Stop being a Nazi war criminal wanna be! Do you work for the FOSSF? Otherwise known as the F-OSS-F = Future - Office of Strategic Services - Foundation.

On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 21:53:29 UTC, Ignacious wrote:
> On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 19:30:40 UTC, Chris Wright wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 15:19:57 +0000, Ignacious wrote:
>>> [...]
>>
>> LGPL is much more common, and LGPL isn't a problem when you distribute by source. It *is* a problem with static linking with binary distributions (which is the default for D).
>>
>> This is not a new issue. Software licensing is a well understood, well publicized concern. It doesn't merit alarmism.
>
> Sure it does! Stop being a Nazi war criminal wanna be! Do you work for the FOSSF? Otherwise known as the F-OSS-F = Future - Office of Strategic Services - Foundation.

What is this thread accomplishing other than ranting about GPL and calling others Nazis?

On Saturday, 14 January 2017 at 01:40:58 UTC, Chris M. wrote:
> On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 21:53:29 UTC, Ignacious wrote:
>> On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 19:30:40 UTC, Chris Wright wrote:
>>> On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 15:19:57 +0000, Ignacious wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> LGPL is much more common, and LGPL isn't a problem when you distribute by source. It *is* a problem with static linking with binary distributions (which is the default for D).
>>>
>>> This is not a new issue. Software licensing is a well understood, well publicized concern. It doesn't merit alarmism.
>>
>> Sure it does! Stop being a Nazi war criminal wanna be! Do you work for the FOSSF? Otherwise known as the F-OSS-F = Future - Office of Strategic Services - Foundation.
>
> What is this thread accomplishing other than ranting about GPL and calling others Nazis?

Quite a bit! I has solved the mysteries of the universe and shown that you are a Hitler sympathizer and progressteron.

On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 02:25:03 UTC, Ignacious wrote:
> Licenses should be more specific in their terminology and their behaviors and effects rather than using arbitrary divisions.

If your plugin uses contrived API riddled with all good C(++) misfeatures to customize like 80% of program's functionality - it thus creates a competing proprietary product, which is what GPL tries to prevent. AFAIK it doesn't allow you to use complex API with out of process plugins either. With this division of API GPL tries to control what a plugin can do to the host application, namely it tries to keep degree of integration and complexity of the plugin API low. If you know a better way to do it, you can propose it to FSF, that's also why GPL addresses automatic license upgrade.