Any chance to call Tango as Extended Standard Library

[Sean Kelly]

== Quote from Steven Schveighoffer (schveiguy at yahoo.com)'s article
> "Sean Kelly" wrote
> > Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> >> "Don" wrote
> >>> Bill Baxter wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Don <nospam at nospam.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> >>>>>> Let's not forget the licensing issues.  Tango is incompatible with
> >>>>>> some
> >>>>>> developers license wise, as you must include attribution for Tango in
> >>>>>> any
> >>>>>> derivative works (i.e. compiled binaries).
> >>>>> Are you sure? Where is that written down? I can't find that anywhere
> >>>>> in the
> >>>>> Tango license.
> >>>> Probably this:
> >>>>
> >>>> 6. Attribution Rights. You must retain, in the Source Code of any
> >>>> Derivative Works that You create, all copyright, patent, or trademark
> >>>> notices from the Source Code of the Original Work, as well as any
> >>>> notices of licensing and any descriptive text identified therein as an
> >>>> "Attribution Notice." You must cause the Source Code for any
> >>>> Derivative Works that You create to carry a prominent Attribution
> >>>> Notice reasonably calculated to inform recipients that You have
> >>>> modified the Original Work.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think it's just saying you can't remove stuff from the source code
> >>>> that says who wrote it.  But it's got a thick legal accent that's a
> >>>> little difficult to understand.
> >>> Yes, it explicitly states that it's source code-only requirement.
> >>> Perhaps the page should include an approximate explanation, to remove
> >>> confusion
> >>
> >> I'm not a lawyer, but I think that the artistic license requires source
> >> redistribution (I agree the license is difficult to comprehend), whereas
> >> the BSD style license requires attribution with binaries.  So either way,
> >> you must provide attribution.  Some companies may frown upon that,
> >> especially when we're talking about a standard library.
> >
> > I've read the BSD license very carefully and I think it only requires
> > attribution with binary distributions of the library, not apps written
> > with the library.  If I'm wrong I'd love to know, because druntime is
> > currently BSD licensed (something I've been meaning to reconsider).
> As D currently is statically linked, any application is a binary
> distribution of the library.  However, even with shared libraries, I believe
> it is still considered a binary distribution if your application uses the
> library (as your code needs the dynamic library to run).  This is why the
> LGPL exists.  I don't know if there is an equivalent BSD version.
> Again, not a lawyer :)

You don't need to be :-).  People's perception of a license is as important
as what it means in fact.  None of this is an issue for the DMD distribution
because I've granted Walter permission to distribute druntime under the
Phobos license, but it's something I want to take care of regardless.  I
may just make the darn thing public domain to save myself the hassle
of finding a license everyone is happy with.


Sean