Licences issues with d runtime

[Sean Kelly]

Robert Jacques wrote:
> Deep in the 'eliminate writeln et comp?' thread there's been a recent 
> discussion about the confusion over Tango licences. In particular, 
> regarding the desire that the standard library shouldn't require binary 
> 'copies' (a.k.a. every single executable compiled using it) from 
> publishing/containing the library's licence. (And specifically, trying 
> to understand the AFL) Anyways, I recently checked D2, and about half 
> the druntime files are in BSD (which require publication) while the 
> other half are in the zlib/libpng/Phobos licence (which doesn't).

I had thought that the publication requirement was simply for binary 
redistributions of the library itself, and that apps which simply used 
the library were exempt.  However, I've been meaning to change the 
license to something more permissive anyway.  This will probably happen 
before the next DMD release.