On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:48:27 -0500, dsimcha <dsim...@yahoo.com> wrote:
== Quote from Steven Schveighoffer (schvei...@yahoo.com)'s article
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:40:10 -0500, Walter Bright
<newshou...@digitalmars.com> wrote:
> grauzone wrote:
>> Ever heard of Tango?
>
> Yes, and I'd be happy to:
>
> 1. have Tango available for D2 and work with Druntime.
>
> 2. move individual packages from Tango to Phobos. This would require
> permission from the author(s) of those packages, as they'd need to be
> relicensed. (Tango uses the BSD license which seems to require notice
on
> all binaries compiled with it, this is unacceptable for Phobos.) So
far,
> only Sean and Don have been willing to do this.
Tango is dual-licensed. The other license it uses (the Academic Free
License 3.0) allows binary distribution without attribution.
See http://www.dsource.org/projects/tango/wiki/License
-Steve
Is there a plain English explanation of the Academic Free License
anywhere? I
read this somewhere on the Tango website before, but I wasn't sure how
significant
it was, since the Academic Free License is dense, long legalese w/o any
plain
English explanations.
Agreed, it was in fact my mis-interpretation of the AFL that caused Tango
to put the second note on the above referenced license page ;) See
http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=82496
It would be truly great if Tango could be used under a license with
permissiveness
equivalent to the Boost license. It would help mend a pretty
significant rift in
the D community that started over a minor technicality.
I wouldn't waste any time trying to get Tango to change their license.
Aside from being an almost insurmountable task to get all the developers
to agree to do it, since the AFL allows permissions that are exactly in
line with what the Tango devs want, I don't think they have any reason to
change it.
-Steve
