eliminate writeln et comp?

[Robert Jacques]

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 09:23:44 -0400, Don <nospam at nospam.com> wrote:
> I agree, requiring to include copyright with every binary distribution  
> is unacceptable for a standard library. But...
>Tango is also available under the Academic Free License. Which I don't  
> understand, despite having read through the ten page explanation of it.
> Specifically, you're allow to change it to "any license of your choice  
> that does not contradict the terms and conditions, including Licensor's  
> reserved rights and remedies, in this Academic Free > License;"
>But what does that mean? Which licenses does it include? Does it include  
> the zlib license? I presume not.
> In which case Andrei and Walter's position is entirely justified. If  
> that is correct, I will cease contributing to Tango.
>Someone, _please_ tell me I'm wrong.

No, sadly you're right. According to wikipedia, the AFL is not GPL  
compatible. If AFL could be converted to zlib then you could convert ALF  
source to zlib and it would then be GPL compatible. Q.E.D. Hence, ALF can  
not be convert to zlib.

So far the only other licence I saw without the binary-licence  
distribution problem is the Boost Software License (BSL1.0) (And of course  
the WTFYW licence) And I'm guessing this issue is why they wrote a new  
licence instead of reusing an old one.

Actually, some of the BSD/MIT like licences might be valid if you included  
the licence string as a constant in the binary distribution (although this  
is definitely not in the spirit of the licence)