On 2009-03-20 05:46:08 +0100, "Robert Jacques" <sandf...@jhu.edu> said:
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.
yes as far as I understand the problem with AFL is that it has a kind
of viral component like GPL, in that derivative work need to have a
compatible license, and redistribution should ensure that the license
is preserved, zlib does not have that.
I don't think it is wrong, but I would be happy also with zlib...
Fawzi
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.
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)
