Phobos licensing

[Bill Baxter]

Carlos Santander wrote:
> Bill Baxter escribió:
>> 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
> 
> I knew I'd seen this somewhere:
> http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=31544 

Beautiful.  Good work.  I sure couldn't find that.

So all that's needed is for Walter to copy openrj's license preamble 
over to std.loader and std.windows.resistry.

--bb