Steven Schveighoffer wrote: > "Piotrek" wrote >> Hello! >> >> It's just an idea. After reading about issues on disallowing DWT to stay >> in standardization area (Anomaly on Wiki4D GuiLibraries page) some >> question appeared in my mind. For propaganda sake isn't it better to not >> make such a big division between phobos and tango in the module naming? >> Logically: >> >> phobos -> std >> tango -> stdex (not tango -> tango) > > 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). Phobos has a less restrictive > opt-in policy. I think Walter intends to keep it that way, at least for > DMD. Note that other compilers are free to use Tango or their own > standard library, the D spec is pretty free from library references.
Sorry, where do you find this attribution clause? The only two restrictions put on Tango source is: * You cannot relicense the source - can't possibly be a problem to anyone * You cannot take the source and say you wrote it (unless you actually did) - not a problem for a single person unless he'd like to be dishonest. Saying that Tango is license-encumbered in any way is a gross misunderstanding. -- Lars Ivar Igesund blog at http://larsivi.net DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi Dancing the Tango
