Any chance to call Tango as Extended Standard Library

[Steven Schveighoffer]

"Lars Ivar Igesund" wrote
> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>
>> "Piotrek" wrote
>>> Hello!
>>>
>>> It's just an idea. After reading about issues on disallowing DWT to stay
>>> in standardization area (Anomaly on Wiki4D GuiLibraries page) some
>>> question appeared in my mind. For propaganda sake isn't it better to not
>>> make such a big division between phobos and tango in the module naming?
>>> Logically:
>>>
>>> phobos -> std
>>> tango  -> stdex (not tango -> tango)
>>
>> 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).  Phobos has a less restrictive
>> opt-in policy.  I think Walter intends to keep it that way, at least for
>> DMD.  Note that other compilers are free to use Tango or their own
>> standard library, the D spec is pretty free from library references.
>
> Sorry, where do you find this attribution clause? The only two 
> restrictions put on Tango source is:
>
> * You cannot relicense the source - can't possibly be a problem to anyone
> * You cannot take the source and say you wrote it (unless you actually 
> did) - not a problem for a single person unless he'd like to be dishonest.
>
> Saying that Tango is license-encumbered in any way is a gross 
> misunderstanding.

Sorry if I'm spreading misinformation, but I understood this clause in the 
BSD license to mean that any binary distribution must contain attribution:

"Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, 
this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation 
and/or other materials provided with the distribution."

The mentioned copyright notice being "Copyright (c) 2004-2008, Tango 
contributors All rights reserved."

As D is statically compiled, any application which uses Tango is effectively 
a binary distribution of it.  At least that's what I interpret it as.  How 
do youi interpret the above line?

Conversely, the Phobos license's clause is:

"The origin of this software must not be misrepresented; you must not claim 
that you wrote the original software. If you use this software in a product, 
an acknowledgment in the product documentation would be appreciated but is 
not required."

Which I interpret to mean that you cannot misrepresent that you wrote 
Phobos, but it is appreciated if you give Digital Mars credit for it in your 
application.

I can't really understand whether it is required to distribute the source 
code of a derivative work under the Academic Free License, so I don't really 
understand that.  Maybe that is the license you can use for distributing 
binaries without attribution?

I'd love to be wrong, because that would mean Tango is a lot more open than 
I originally thought.

-Steve