"Don" wrote > Bill Baxter wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Don <nos...@nospam.com> wrote: >>> Steven Schveighoffer wrote: >>>> Let's not forget the licensing issues. Tango is incompatible with some >>>> developers license wise, as you must include attribution for Tango in >>>> any >>>> derivative works (i.e. compiled binaries). >>> Are you sure? Where is that written down? I can't find that anywhere in >>> the >>> Tango license. >> >> Probably this: >> >> 6. Attribution Rights. You must retain, in the Source Code of any >> Derivative Works that You create, all copyright, patent, or trademark >> notices from the Source Code of the Original Work, as well as any >> notices of licensing and any descriptive text identified therein as an >> "Attribution Notice." You must cause the Source Code for any >> Derivative Works that You create to carry a prominent Attribution >> Notice reasonably calculated to inform recipients that You have >> modified the Original Work. >> >> I think it's just saying you can't remove stuff from the source code >> that says who wrote it. But it's got a thick legal accent that's a >> little difficult to understand. > > Yes, it explicitly states that it's source code-only requirement. > Perhaps the page should include an approximate explanation, to remove > confusion
I'm not a lawyer, but I think that the artistic license requires source redistribution (I agree the license is difficult to comprehend), whereas the BSD style license requires attribution with binaries. So either way, you must provide attribution. Some companies may frown upon that, especially when we're talking about a standard library. I'm not saying it should change, but that is one other reason that I think Walter has not considered adopting Tango as *the* standard library. -Steve
