Chris Wright wrote:
Walter said, basically, that since it's possible that SHOO may have used code from Tango, Tango devs should relicense their work.
Not exactly. To rephrase, I said that since SHOO has viewed Tango's source code, there is the appearance of impropriety. Not that there actually is any impropriety. It's the appearance I wish to avoid. I am not accusing anyone of infringement, and have no basis to.
I have asked the Tango devs to relicense their work. I feel that if that can be accomplished, this would bury this issue once and for all, and the rift between the communities should heal.
That's insulting. It's admitting theft and demanding that the victim call it a gift. If it were a policy, Walter would have a way of badgering us into relicensing most of Tango against our will.
I can't make you do anything you don't want to. I especially have no means, desire, or intention of forcing anyone to change their license or give up their copyrights.
I'm not saying that SHOO copied any Tango code. Walter's reaction, though, means I would never relicense any code for Phobos.
I've repeatedly stated, and say so again, that I give explicit permission to Tango to incorporate any or all of code I have written for Phobos into Tango, and to relicense those derived works as necessary to be compatible with Tango. Tango's garbage collector is such a derived work, and I have no issue with it.
As for Phobos code I did not write, in order to relicense it, you'd have to get the permission of the author(s) of it, which is stated in each module. But it is entirely unnecessary to relicense it - the Boost license allows you to use it any way you want to. The Boost license is not viral, it will not "infect" anything you hook it up to (neither does the BSD license - in fact, the only real difference between the BSD and Boost licenses is the binary attribution clause).
