Any chance to call Tango as Extended Standard Library

[Lars Ivar Igesund]

Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

> "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?

You are correct about the BSD license, but where you are wrong is the fact that you as a user choose which of the two available licenses you wish to agree with. BSD with the binary clause is necessary for compatibility with (L)GPL, whereas APL, stands for completely free binary use, but the source restriction that you cannot remove the name of the authors (although you can freely augment the list if that is a correct picture).

So it is not both licenses, but the one that suits you.

> 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."

In practice this should be the same as the APL, only that the APL is written in legalese for better or worse.


> 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. 

It is not required, AFAIK only LGPL and GPL of the common licenses require that.

> Maybe that is the license you can use for distributing
> binaries without attribution?

Yes.

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango