Yigal Chripun wrote:
You're saying that if I write code using Tango, I can license *my* code
with whatever I want. My source will require a tango dll to work and
*that* dll must come with its apache 2.0 license file.
That sounds completely reasonable to me. I don't get what the problem
with this scheme of things.
The problems are:
1. There seems to be much confusion about what the Apache license
actually means. This means the users will be confused about it too. The
more they need lawyers and court opinions on what it means, the more
likely they are to just move on and use something else.
2. Phobos uses the Boost license. In order to mix in Tango libraries,
then Phobos will have to be dual licensed with Boost and Apache. This is
not a good state of affairs for users and their lawyers. One license for
the standard library is expected.
3. The Boost license appears to be the most permissive of all. It's
still in version 1, has been for many years, apparently nobody has felt
it needs to be changed.
4. The Boost license is used extensively in the C++ community, including
for corporate use, meaning it already has passed muster with corporate
lawyers. D using the Boost license means it's a no-brainer for them -
the license is already approved.
5. Tango is looking at relicensing anyway. I can't identify any reason
to choose Apache over Boost, and 1..4 to choose Boost over Apache.
