Masahiro Nakagawa and SHOO invited to join Phobos developers

[Moritz Warning]

On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 11:34:19 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:

> Moritz Warning wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 09:24:22 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> As far as I have heard, Tango changed it's license to be compatible
>> with Phobos in the first place.
> 
> Tango is originally based on Phobos code, and I gave explicit permission
> for it to be incorporated into the Tango project & BSD license, but the
> BSD license does not permit code to flow the other way without the
> explicit permission of the Tango devs.
> 
> Some code has moved back to Phobos, in particular Sean & Don's work,
> because Sean & Don are the developers of that code and it is their
> prerogative to do what they please with it.
> 
> 
>> But Phobos then changed it's license and now it's incompatible again.
>> What were the reasons for Phobos to change the license? I suspect is
>> was discussed before, do you have a link?
> 
> Phobos was formerly actually a collection of different licenses, Phobos
> 1.0 still is. Some was public domain.
> 
> The reason it was switched (for Phobos 2) to Boost was:
> 
> 1. Boost is corporate and lawyer approved, making it a no-brainer for
> commercial, professional use of Phobos
> 
> 2. Boost is the most liberal license we were able to find
> 
> 3. Public domain is not recognized in many countries
> 
> 4. Having one license for Phobos makes it much easier to manage and
> deploy
> 
> The perennial problem with the BSD license is the binary attribution
> clause. Tango believes it has a solution to this by embedding the
> appropriate string in object.d, but I don't know if this has been
> legally tested and it still puts a constant burden of explanation on the
> Tango team.
> 
> It's just a problem that I can see no reason to adopt.

Thank you for the explanation! :)