December 03, 2017
On 30/11/17 21:17, Jack Stouffer wrote:
> I'm starting work on a proposal for stdx.decimal, and one of the clearest implementations to work off of is the Python implementation.
> 
> This however, poses a problem because Python's source is under the PSFL, a BSD-like permissive license. Any derivative work, such as a D conversion, must have the original copyright notice, a copy of the PSFL, as a well as a summary of changes. This is simple enough to do, but the resulting code would be dual-licensed with the PSFL and the BSL 1.0 (dual-licensing being relatively common in other OSS projects).
> 
> My question is there any reason this could pose a problem? Could this interfere with something like distribution or company adoption?
> 
> Also note, one of the existing Phobos modules, std.net.isemail, is supposed to be dual-licensed because it's derived from an existing BSD work. But, it's missing the BSD license from the top (and is technically breaking the license because of that).

IANAL

That's not how it works.

Dual licensing means anyone can use the code under one license *or* the other. That is not something you can do on your own.

If the PSFL license and the Boost license are *compatible*, then what you can do is take the original Python code under the PSFL and convert it to D, licensing *your changes* as Boost. The result should look something like this:

This code is copyright (C) 2017 Jack Stouffer
Original Python code copyright (original copyright notice)

Python code is licensed under the PSFL

PSFL head goes here.

D code is licensed under the Boost license:

Boost license header goes here


December 03, 2017
On 02/12/17 03:44, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 12/1/2017 2:57 PM, ketmar wrote:
>> Walter Bright wrote:
>>
>>> You cannot add/change the license of software without permission from the copyright holder. Translating the code from one language to another does not erase the copyright - it's still a derived work.
>>
>> but you still can add another license to source code translation, if that new license doesn't violate the original one. like, you can distribute some source code port under GPL if the original was covered by BSDL, so the port is covered by two licenses *simultaneously* now (i.e. a user must obey both).
> 
> Any added license only applies to what you added that was new.

True, but there is no requirement to make the original work available and/or distinguishable.
1 2 3
Next ›   Last »