Phobos licensing

[Bill Baxter]

Anders F Björklund wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
> 
>>> But it's jumping the gun because I suspect Matthew Wilson might be 
>>> willing to change the license.  At least I'm guessing so, because 
>>> std.openrj is also by him, and it has a reasonable license.
>>
>> If someone wants to take the lead on this, and either ask Matthew to 
>> change the license, or replace those modules, I'll be happy with 
>> either. As it stands, none of them are lynchpins of Phobos, and can be 
>> simply dropped without affecting the rest.
> 
> AFAIK, Matthew *did* change the license on those, and GDC followed this.
> Not sure about std.openrj, but definitely so with registry and loader...
> 
> See DMD Bug #321: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=321
> and Wiki4D: http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?PhobosLicenseIssues
> 
> --anders

Great.  Thanks for that info.  But where is the paper trail showing that 
Matthew agreed?  Is there a newsgroup post you can point to?

Closest thing I could find was this 
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/12879.html
in which Mr. Wilson declares "I don't have a problem with donating my IP 
to Phobos".  But that's not a specific statement that any particular IP 
*has* been donated to Phobos.

--bb