On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 11:34:19 -0700, Walter Bright wrote: > Moritz Warning wrote: >> On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 09:24:22 -0700, Walter Bright wrote: >> >>> Moritz Warning wrote: >> [..] >>>> Maybe you can talk to the Tango devs to clear up this matter? >>> I suggest that the Tango devs convert the Tango modules that can get >>> full agreement by their respective devs be converted to the Boost >>> license. The Boost license is free of the legal problems that BSD has, >>> and is compatible with the Phobos license. >> >> As far as I have heard, Tango changed it's license to be compatible >> with Phobos in the first place. > > Tango is originally based on Phobos code, and I gave explicit permission > for it to be incorporated into the Tango project & BSD license, but the > BSD license does not permit code to flow the other way without the > explicit permission of the Tango devs. > > Some code has moved back to Phobos, in particular Sean & Don's work, > because Sean & Don are the developers of that code and it is their > prerogative to do what they please with it. > > >> But Phobos then changed it's license and now it's incompatible again. >> What were the reasons for Phobos to change the license? I suspect is >> was discussed before, do you have a link? > > Phobos was formerly actually a collection of different licenses, Phobos > 1.0 still is. Some was public domain. > > The reason it was switched (for Phobos 2) to Boost was: > > 1. Boost is corporate and lawyer approved, making it a no-brainer for > commercial, professional use of Phobos > > 2. Boost is the most liberal license we were able to find > > 3. Public domain is not recognized in many countries > > 4. Having one license for Phobos makes it much easier to manage and > deploy > > The perennial problem with the BSD license is the binary attribution > clause. Tango believes it has a solution to this by embedding the > appropriate string in object.d, but I don't know if this has been > legally tested and it still puts a constant burden of explanation on the > Tango team. > > It's just a problem that I can see no reason to adopt.
Thank you for the explanation! :)
