eliminate writeln et comp?

[Fawzi Mohamed]

On 2009-03-20 05:46:08 +0100, "Robert Jacques" <sandford at jhu.edu> said:

> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 09:23:44 -0400, Don <nospam at nospam.com> wrote:
>> I agree, requiring to include copyright with every binary distribution  
>> is unacceptable for a standard library. But...
>> Tango is also available under the Academic Free License. Which I don't  
>> understand, despite having read through the ten page explanation of it.
>> Specifically, you're allow to change it to "any license of your choice  
>> that does not contradict the terms and conditions, including Licensor's 
>>  reserved rights and remedies, in this Academic Free > License;"
>> But what does that mean? Which licenses does it include? Does it 
>> include  the zlib license? I presume not.
>> In which case Andrei and Walter's position is entirely justified. If  
>> that is correct, I will cease contributing to Tango.
>> Someone, _please_ tell me I'm wrong.
> 
> No, sadly you're right. According to wikipedia, the AFL is not GPL  
> compatible. If AFL could be converted to zlib then you could convert 
> ALF  source to zlib and it would then be GPL compatible. Q.E.D. Hence, 
> ALF can  not be convert to zlib.

yes as far as I understand the problem with AFL is that it has a kind 
of viral component like GPL, in that derivative work need to have a 
compatible license, and redistribution should ensure that the license 
is preserved, zlib does not have that.

I don't think it is wrong, but I would be happy also with zlib...

Fawzi

> So far the only other licence I saw without the binary-licence  
> distribution problem is the Boost Software License (BSL1.0) (And of 
> course  the WTFYW licence) And I'm guessing this issue is why they 
> wrote a new  licence instead of reusing an old one.
> 
> Actually, some of the BSD/MIT like licences might be valid if you 
> included  the licence string as a constant in the binary distribution 
> (although this  is definitely not in the spirit of the licence)