"Lars Ivar Igesund" wrote > 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.
Sorry if I'm spreading misinformation, but I understood this clause in the BSD license to mean that any binary distribution must contain attribution: "Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution." The mentioned copyright notice being "Copyright (c) 2004-2008, Tango contributors All rights reserved." As D is statically compiled, any application which uses Tango is effectively a binary distribution of it. At least that's what I interpret it as. How do youi interpret the above line? Conversely, the Phobos license's clause is: "The origin of this software must not be misrepresented; you must not claim that you wrote the original software. If you use this software in a product, an acknowledgment in the product documentation would be appreciated but is not required." Which I interpret to mean that you cannot misrepresent that you wrote Phobos, but it is appreciated if you give Digital Mars credit for it in your application. I can't really understand whether it is required to distribute the source code of a derivative work under the Academic Free License, so I don't really understand that. Maybe that is the license you can use for distributing binaries without attribution? I'd love to be wrong, because that would mean Tango is a lot more open than I originally thought. -Steve
