On 7/1/2013 2:04 PM, Brad Roberts wrote:
On 7/1/13 11:42 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/1/2013 10:45 AM, Joakim wrote:
Then they should choose a mixed license like the Mozilla Public License or CDDL,
which keeps OSS files open while allowing linking with closed source files
within the same application. If they instead chose a license that allows
closing all source, one can only assume they're okay with it. In any case, I
could care less if they're okay with it or not, I was just surprised that they
chose the BSD license and then were mad when someone was thinking about closing
it up.
I should point out that the Boost license was chosen for Phobos specifically
because it allowed
people to copy it and use it for whatever purpose, including making closed
source versions, adapting
them for use with Go :-), whatever.
Actually, Boost was specifically chosen because it didn't require attribution
when redistributing. If BSD hadn't had that clause we probably would be using it
instead.
That was indeed another important reason for it. But we were well aware of and
approved of the idea that people could take it and make closed source versions.
