Masahiro Nakagawa and SHOO invited to join Phobos developers

[Don]

Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Don" <nospam at nospam.com> wrote in message 
> news:hrclc9$gjg$1 at digitalmars.com...
>> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>> "Walter Bright" <newshound1 at digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
>>> news:hrcbrr$2t7e$1 at digitalmars.com...
>>>> 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.
>>> It looks like the Tango devs are pretty much settled on BSD-only with 
>>> some hack to get around the binary attribution thing: 
>>> http://www.dsource.org/projects/tango/ticket/1701  (*Shrug*, well, at 
>>> least it's not as insanely verbose and impenetrable as Apache 2.0...)
>>>
>>> I *hate* licenses...(That's why I use the zlib one, none of the public 
>>> domain problems, all of the freedoms that I've been told Boost offers, 
>>> and none of Boost's idiotic over-verbosity.)
>> Yeah, we all feel the same way.
>> But I don't think the boost license is verbose. It's 4% of the length of 
>> the GPL:
>>
>> zlib:     957 characters
>> boost:    1361 (1/3 of which comes from US legal requirements).
>> Apache2:                 9219
>> Academic free license3: 10332
>> GPL 3:                  32069
> 
> Saying a license isn't verbose because it's much shorter than the GPL is 
> like saying a particular restaurant is good just because it's better than 
> eating out of a dumpster.

Well, there's not many places to eat in this town, outside of the 
dumpsters. Boost and zlib were the only ones I found.

> Seriously, were they *trying* to prevent people from understanding it?  If
> so, I don't think they could have done a better job. (At least not without 
> hiring the FSF's "Let's do everything we can to enure our profession is 
> needed as much as possible" lawyers.)

Have you read the rationale statement for the Boost license? (on the 
boost website).

The really appalling one is the OSI license. There's a huge document 
which purports to explain the license, but it doesn't explain it at all. 
It's just a polemic against the GPL. The FSF is much clearer than the OSI.