• Robert Jacques (12/12) Mar 21 2009 Deep in the 'eliminate writeln et comp?' thread there's been a recent
• Walter Bright (2/5) Mar 21 2009 Sean is working on fixing this.
• Robert Jacques (8/13) Mar 22 2009 You might also wish to consider changing files 'placed into the Public
• Robert Jacques (3/8) Mar 22 2009 Thanks :)
• Sean Kelly (6/14) Mar 22 2009 I had thought that the publication requirement was simply for binary

"Robert Jacques" <sandford jhu.edu> writes:

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).

This is a serious legal obligation which isn't in the primary DMD licence  
or readme. Would it be possible for the licence in druntime to be unified?  
(If not, a more prominent notice would be appreciated)

Thank you.

Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:

Robert Jacques wrote:
 This is a serious legal obligation which isn't in the primary DMD 
 licence or readme. Would it be possible for the licence in druntime to 
 be unified? (If not, a more prominent notice would be appreciated)

Sean is working on fixing this.

"Robert Jacques" <sandford jhu.edu> writes:

On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 02:16:39 -0400, Walter Bright  
<newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote:

 Robert Jacques wrote:
 This is a serious legal obligation which isn't in the primary DMD  
 licence or readme. Would it be possible for the licence in druntime to  
 be unified? (If not, a more prominent notice would be appreciated)

 Sean is working on fixing this.

You might also wish to consider changing files 'placed into the Public  
Domain'. While valid in most of the 1st world, 'Public Domain' isn't  
mentioned in the copyright law of many countries. Notably in Japan, the  
term copyright-free is preferred as public domain is ambiguity and may  
carry restrictions. That said, at worst these files should be covered by  
the root licence.txt. (Source: wikipedia)

"Robert Jacques" <sandford jhu.edu> writes:

On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 02:16:39 -0400, Walter Bright  
<newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote:

 Robert Jacques wrote:
 This is a serious legal obligation which isn't in the primary DMD  
 licence or readme. Would it be possible for the licence in druntime to  
 be unified? (If not, a more prominent notice would be appreciated)

 Sean is working on fixing this.

Thanks :)

Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:

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.