Robert Jacques wrote:
This is a serious legal obligation which isn't in the primary DMD
licence or readme. Would it be possible for the licence in druntime to
be unified? (If not, a more prominent notice would be appreciated)
Sean is working on fixing this.
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 02:16:39 -0400, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
Robert Jacques wrote:
This is a serious legal obligation which isn't in the primary DMD
licence or readme. Would it be possible for the licence in druntime to
be unified? (If not, a more prominent notice
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 02:16:39 -0400, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
Robert Jacques wrote:
This is a serious legal obligation which isn't in the primary DMD
licence or readme. Would it be possible for the licence in druntime to
be unified? (If not, a more prominent notice
Robert Jacques wrote:
Deep in the 'eliminate writeln et comp?' thread there's been a recent
discussion about the confusion over Tango licences. In particular,
regarding the desire that the standard library shouldn't require binary
'copies' (a.k.a. every single executable compiled using it)
Deep in the 'eliminate writeln et comp?' thread there's been a recent
discussion about the confusion over Tango licences. In particular,
regarding the desire that the standard library shouldn't require binary
'copies' (a.k.a. every single executable compiled using it) from
