The Death of D. (Was Tango vs Phobos)

[Paul D. Anderson]

Walter Bright Wrote:

> Paul D. Anderson wrote:
> > But what I
> > would really like to see (and I don't think it's asking too much) is
> > a clear statement from Walter that he will indeed make the changes
> > the Tango developers are asking for at some future date.
> 
> In order for this to happen, I need a clear and unambiguous statement 
> from the Tango developers that Phobos can incorporate parts of the Tango 
> runtime and place them under the Phobos license. I have already provided 
> a reciprocal license to Tango.
> 
> I've asked for that for over a year, and so far only Sean and Don have 
> done so.
> 
> Such an agreement is necessary for the following reasons:
> 
> 1. To ensure Phobos is free of any legal taint and any accusations of 
> stealing code.
> 
> 2. To avoid the untenable issue of a single module in Phobos having 
> different license for different lines of code.
> 
> I have explained this to the main Tango developers on multiple 
> occasions. It is their right and privilege to license Tango as they see 
> fit, and I respect that and so have not spoken out on it before. But in 
> this thread I am being cast as a roadblock, which I feel is a little 
> unfair, so I will loosen my tongue and speak up a bit :-)

Thanks for clarifying this, and I apologize, Walter, and reiterate my appreciation for what you do. But I was expressing my frustration at what I thought the situation was. If there was discussion about licensing issues I missed it. (I missed your earlier post in this thread because I was busy "composing" my tirade.)

>From my point of view this puts the ball squarely back in Tango's court. Is there a fundamental problem here? Can we move forward?

Paul