Robert Jacques wrote:
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 09:23:44 -0400, Don <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
I agree, requiring to include copyright with every binary distribution
is unacceptable for a standard library. But...
Tango is also available under the Academic Free License. Which I don't
understand, despite having read through the ten page explanation of it.
Specifically, you're allow to change it to "any license of your choice
that does not contradict the terms and conditions, including
Licensor's reserved rights and remedies, in this Academic Free >
License;"
But what does that mean? Which licenses does it include? Does it
include the zlib license? I presume not.
In which case Andrei and Walter's position is entirely justified. If
that is correct, I will cease contributing to Tango.
Someone, _please_ tell me I'm wrong.
No, sadly you're right. According to wikipedia, the AFL is not GPL
compatible. If AFL could be converted to zlib then you could convert ALF
source to zlib and it would then be GPL compatible. Q.E.D. Hence, ALF
can not be convert to zlib.
So far the only other licence I saw without the binary-licence
distribution problem is the Boost Software License (BSL1.0) (And of
course the WTFYW licence) And I'm guessing this issue is why they wrote
a new licence instead of reusing an old one.
The zlib license also doesn't have the binary distribution problem.
The Boost license looks pretty good to me, and they seem to have used
better legal consultation than the zlib license. I also like the fact
that it only occupies 3 lines of source code -- that's much better than
zlib.
Boost, zlib, WTFYW, and public domain, seem to be the only ones which
are suitable for a standard library.
Actually, some of the BSD/MIT like licences might be valid if you
included the licence string as a constant in the binary distribution
(although this is definitely not in the spirit of the licence)
