[dmd-internals] DMD copyright assignment

[Leandro Lucarella via dmd-internals]

Walter Bright via dmd-internals, el 24 de June a las 12:25 me escribiste:
> 
> On 6/24/2014 8:10 AM, Steven Schveighoffer via dmd-internals wrote:
> >
> >We don't really care about tango's XML library's license. It's license is incompatible (note that libmysql's license IS currently incompatible), it won't destroy D. We can survive by using a compatible XML library, or writing our own. Really the arguments are exactly the same.
> 
> I've stated numerous times that one module going awry in Phobos will
> not destroy D, as it can be replaced. That's a lot harder with dmd.
> How, for example, would Kenji's pervasive and intricate
> contributions be unwound?
> 
> >
> >I think instead of playing a guessing game as to what some future event might do to DMD, let's first actually show what event can happen besides some nebulous unproven concerns. Living in constant fear of the unknown is not a way to plan for the future. So far, the example problems we've been given would not be solved by having sole ownership of the copyright of DMD or Phobos.
> >
> 
> If Digital Mars owned the Tango XML copyright, we wouldn't be faced
> with rewriting it from scratch, which is the problem we have right
> now. We also wouldn't have had to abandon ddbg.

If Tango were Boost licensed, you wouldn't have that problem either.
Keep using the Tango example doesn't add any value, seriously. You sound
like a broken records :)

External project licenses have nothing to do with requiring copyright
assignment to contribute to DMDFE/druntime/phobos! What's the point?

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)                     http://llucax.com.ar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Con todas las manos que me acogotan, no puedo respirar
Con todos sus dedos me haría una torta, para festejar
Que no me estoy yendo solo de este lugar