September 06, 2017
On Tuesday, 5 September 2017 at 22:25:57 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> If you go with a BSD or Boost license, you're maximizing who can use your software, but you have no guarantees that any improvements will be made available, whereas the (L)GPL does guarantee that those improvements will be made available (assuming that folks behave themselves and follow the license anyway), but that means that there are a lot of projects that can't use your software, because those restrictions are unacceptable to those developing it.

I'll also note that if a developer uses GPL software on the server, he doesn't have to give any source to users who access apps on the server remotely.  For example, Google uses a linux kernel with proprietary modifications on a million servers running their search engine, yet my understanding is that they have not made most of those modifications available, as they're not required to under the GPL.  By contrast, every Android vendor has to release the source for their linux kernel.  It's not a coincidence that GPL software took off on the sever, until and except for Android's kernel.

That's why some devs then came up with the Affero GPL, to close the server loophole, though it hasn't been used for linux:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License
September 05, 2017
On 9/5/2017 10:19 PM, Joakim via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> I'll also note that if a developer uses GPL software on the server, he doesn't have to give any source to users who access apps on the server remotely.  For example, Google uses a linux kernel with proprietary modifications on a million servers running their search engine, yet my understanding is that they have not made most of those modifications available, as they're not required to under the GPL.  By contrast, every Android vendor has to release the source for their linux kernel.  It's not a coincidence that GPL software took off on the sever, until and except for Android's kernel.

Your understanding is somewhat flawed.  Google is a major contributor to the linux kernel as well as quite a few other projects.  They are extraordinary members of the open source community and the internet at large.  They have one of the most proactive security teams out there as another example.

Please, do a little research.  While there's a lot to dislike about google and their public facing services, they offset that quite a bit in my eyes through how their engineering staff behaves.
September 06, 2017
On Wednesday, 6 September 2017 at 06:43:45 UTC, Brad Roberts wrote:
> On 9/5/2017 10:19 PM, Joakim via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> I'll also note that if a developer uses GPL software on the server, he doesn't have to give any source to users who access apps on the server remotely.  For example, Google uses a linux kernel with proprietary modifications on a million servers running their search engine, yet my understanding is that they have not made most of those modifications available, as they're not required to under the GPL.  By contrast, every Android vendor has to release the source for their linux kernel.  It's not a coincidence that GPL software took off on the sever, until and except for Android's kernel.
>
> Your understanding is somewhat flawed.  Google is a major contributor to the linux kernel as well as quite a few other projects.  They are extraordinary members of the open source community and the internet at large.  They have one of the most proactive security teams out there as another example.
>
> Please, do a little research.  While there's a lot to dislike about google and their public facing services, they offset that quite a bit in my eyes through how their engineering staff behaves.

My understanding is based on research, specifically this lwn article from 8 years ago, which says they didn't work with the kernel community much back when they were mostly running linux on servers:

https://lwn.net/Articles/357658/

Of course, as I noted, they've since had to release the source to the linux kernels they use for Android, because the GPL requires it.  I haven't seen anything about their releasing much of their modifications to their server kernels, please share your research if you know more about that.
September 06, 2017
On Sunday, 3 September 2017 at 16:10:11 UTC, Gary Willoughby wrote:
> My question, is there a legal way to change the current license to Boost or MIT or something like? Because this particular developer wanted to use it in a project where LGPL was incompatible.
>
> [1]: https://github.com/D-Programming-Deimos/libX11
> [2]: https://github.com/nomad-software/x11

I thought x11 has MIT flavor license. Where LGPL comes from? If x11 is LGPL licensed header license doesn't affect anything: application of LGPL is determined by linking. Though GPL and/or LGPL have an exception for system libraries.
September 06, 2017
On Wednesday, 6 September 2017 at 09:23:33 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
> On Sunday, 3 September 2017 at 16:10:11 UTC, Gary Willoughby wrote:
>> My question, is there a legal way to change the current license to Boost or MIT or something like? Because this particular developer wanted to use it in a project where LGPL was incompatible.
>>
>> [1]: https://github.com/D-Programming-Deimos/libX11
>> [2]: https://github.com/nomad-software/x11
>
> I thought x11 has MIT flavor license. Where LGPL comes from? If x11 is LGPL licensed header license doesn't affect anything: application of LGPL is determined by linking. Though GPL and/or LGPL have an exception for system libraries.

Under LGPL, Deimos libX11 has been released.

For binding library, LGPL is actually the same as GPL since it's linked statically.

Unlike LGPL for which you can create closed source apps if library is linked dynamically, the only way to use derelict binding with LGPL license is GPL compatible license for your application.

September 06, 2017
On Wednesday, 6 September 2017 at 10:05:18 UTC, Vadim Lopatin wrote:
> Unlike LGPL for which you can create closed source apps if library is linked dynamically, the only way to use derelict binding with LGPL license is GPL compatible license for your application.

https://github.com/D-Programming-Deimos/libX11/blob/master/dub.json it doesn't look like it has any reference to derelict.
September 06, 2017
On Wednesday, 6 September 2017 at 10:14:02 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
> On Wednesday, 6 September 2017 at 10:05:18 UTC, Vadim Lopatin wrote:
>> Unlike LGPL for which you can create closed source apps if library is linked dynamically, the only way to use derelict binding with LGPL license is GPL compatible license for your application.
>
> https://github.com/D-Programming-Deimos/libX11/blob/master/dub.json it doesn't look like it has any reference to derelict.

Sorry, not a derelict, just header files translation as DUB package in https://github.com/nomad-software/x11

September 11, 2017
On Monday, 4 September 2017 at 17:54:36 UTC, Vadim Lopatin wrote:
> Contributors to DUB package nomad-software/x11
>
> nomad-software
> weltensturm
> Geod24
> MartinNowak
> BBasile
> rikkimax
>
> Additionally, contributors to Deimos/libX11
>
> growlercab
> bioinfornatics
> skilion
> CyberShadow
> Faianca
> Flamaros
> PhilipWitte
> edmccard
> arukuka
> IanWizard
> WalterBright

Looks like recreating of binding from scratch based on C headers could be faster than getting confirmation from all of contributors.

September 11, 2017
On 11/09/2017 1:36 PM, Vadim Lopatin wrote:
> On Monday, 4 September 2017 at 17:54:36 UTC, Vadim Lopatin wrote:
>> Contributors to DUB package nomad-software/x11
>>
>> nomad-software
>> weltensturm
>> Geod24
>> MartinNowak
>> BBasile
>> rikkimax
>>
>> Additionally, contributors to Deimos/libX11
>>
>> growlercab
>> bioinfornatics
>> skilion
>> CyberShadow
>> Faianca
>> Flamaros
>> PhilipWitte
>> edmccard
>> arukuka
>> IanWizard
>> WalterBright
> 
> Looks like recreating of binding from scratch based on C headers could be faster than getting confirmation from all of contributors.

Needs more work but... https://github.com/Devisualization/spew/tree/master/src/utils/cf/spew/bindings/x11 yeah.

September 11, 2017
On Monday, 11 September 2017 at 13:41:39 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
> Needs more work but... https://github.com/Devisualization/spew/tree/master/src/utils/cf/spew/bindings/x11 yeah.

Have you created this binding yourself w/o using of Deimos code?