On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:39:31 -0500, dsimcha <[email protected]> wrote:
== Quote from Steven Schveighoffer ([email protected])'s article
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:48:27 -0500, dsimcha <[email protected]> wrote:
> == Quote from Steven Schveighoffer ([email protected])'s article
>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:40:10 -0500, Walter Bright
>> <[email protected]> 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
Well this is great news. I read over the AFL text and it seems to
basically be
just be a more wordy, harder to parse equivalent to the Boost license.
So the AFL
is not the Boost license, but it is equivalently permissive. In other
words they
are (I think) compatible.
For the convenience of the forum readers, here's the attribution rights
block:
6. Attribution Rights. You must retain, in the Source Code of any
Derivative Works
that You create, all copyright, patent, or trademark notices from the
Source Code
of the Original Work, as well as any notices of licensing and any
descriptive text
identified therein as an "Attribution Notice." You must cause the Source
Code for
any Derivative Works that You create to carry a prominent Attribution
Notice
reasonably calculated to inform recipients that You have modified the
Original Work.
The AFL does have attribution issues due to clause 1c), which puts rather
restrictive conditions on the license the binary copy is distributed
under. 1C is also what causes it to be incompatible with other licenses,
such as the GPL. Also, the AFL requires (clause 3) every program contain a
copy of the AFL licensed source code.
