Phobos licensing

[Carlos Santander]

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

-- 
Carlos Santander Bernal