www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.announce - Masahiro Nakagawa and SHOO invited to join Phobos developers

reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
Hello,


Following the great work that Masahiro Nakagawa and SHOO offered to 
Phobos, we are inviting them to join the Phobos developer ranks.

Once the community review of the proposed libraries concludes with 
approval, Masahiro and SHOO will be able to commit the modules to Phobos 
themselves.

In case you two accept the invitation, please create accounts on 
dsource.org if you don't have and the let me know of your IDs.


Andrei
Apr 28 2010
next sibling parent reply SHOO <zan77137 nifty.com> writes:
Andrei Alexandrescu さんは書きました:
 Hello,
 
 
 Following the great work that Masahiro Nakagawa and SHOO offered to 
 Phobos, we are inviting them to join the Phobos developer ranks.
 
 Once the community review of the proposed libraries concludes with 
 approval, Masahiro and SHOO will be able to commit the modules to Phobos 
 themselves.
 
 In case you two accept the invitation, please create accounts on 
 dsource.org if you don't have and the let me know of your IDs.
 
 
 Andrei

For your invitation, I answer yes. My account of dsource.org is here: http://www.dsource.org/forums/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=2375
Apr 29 2010
next sibling parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 04/29/2010 03:02 AM, SHOO wrote:
 Andrei Alexandrescu さんは書きました:
 Hello,


 Following the great work that Masahiro Nakagawa and SHOO offered to
 Phobos, we are inviting them to join the Phobos developer ranks.

 Once the community review of the proposed libraries concludes with
 approval, Masahiro and SHOO will be able to commit the modules to
 Phobos themselves.

 In case you two accept the invitation, please create accounts on
 dsource.org if you don't have and the let me know of your IDs.


 Andrei

For your invitation, I answer yes. My account of dsource.org is here: http://www.dsource.org/forums/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=2375

Thanks! You are now a Phobos developer. Unfortunately you cannot commit your changes to std.date because it infringes on Tango's license. Andrei
Apr 29 2010
parent reply SHOO <zan77137 nifty.com> writes:
Andrei Alexandrescu さんは書きました:
 Thanks! You are now a Phobos developer.

 Unfortunately you cannot commit
 your changes to std.date because it infringes on Tango's license.
 
 Andrei

What did I infringe the license of Tango for? For interfaces? For implements? I've written the codes without the intention. Please tell me the points that are the problem.
Apr 29 2010
next sibling parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 04/29/2010 09:39 AM, SHOO wrote:
 Andrei Alexandrescu さんは書きました:
 Thanks! You are now a Phobos developer.

> Unfortunately you cannot commit
 your changes to std.date because it infringes on Tango's license.

 Andrei

What did I infringe the license of Tango for? For interfaces? For implements? I've written the codes without the intention. Please tell me the points that are the problem.

I don't know other details except that a Tango representative explicitly warned us about the potential infringement yesterday. You may want to check with the Tango team. I am sorry for the disappointment this must entail to you. The current direction considered for std.date is to take the design of Boost.Date_Time as a starting point. http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_42_0/doc/html/date_time.html Andrei
Apr 29 2010
next sibling parent reply SHOO <zan77137 nifty.com> writes:
Andrei Alexandrescu さんは書きました:
 On 04/29/2010 09:39 AM, SHOO wrote:
 Andrei Alexandrescu さんは書きました:
 Thanks! You are now a Phobos developer.

> Unfortunately you cannot commit
 your changes to std.date because it infringes on Tango's license.

 Andrei

What did I infringe the license of Tango for? For interfaces? For implements? I've written the codes without the intention. Please tell me the points that are the problem.

I don't know other details except that a Tango representative explicitly warned us about the potential infringement yesterday. You may want to check with the Tango team. I am sorry for the disappointment this must entail to you. The current direction considered for std.date is to take the design of Boost.Date_Time as a starting point. http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_42_0/doc/html/date_time.html Andrei

Hmm... OK, I'll try to rewrite it. I'll thoroughly eliminate codes that resembles Tango's one by the next contribution. And I intend to refer to boost::time. Unfortunately, I cannot reply for a while so that there is a schedule. Bye.
Apr 30 2010
next sibling parent Michel Fortin <michel.fortin michelf.com> writes:
On 2010-04-30 05:02:27 -0400, SHOO <zan77137 nifty.com> said:

 Hmm...
 OK, I'll try to rewrite it.
 I'll thoroughly eliminate codes that resembles Tango's one by the next 
 contribution. And I intend to refer to boost::time.

If you want something concrete to restart your effort, you could use the TimeSpan/DateTime construct I've posted at the start of this thread. I guaranty it isn't based on Tango, as I've never took a look at Tango's date/time module. I got inspired from boost a little (because I've used boost::date_time a lot in the past), but I haven't copied it either. -- Michel Fortin michel.fortin michelf.com http://michelf.com/
Apr 30 2010
prev sibling parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 04/30/2010 08:55 AM, Moritz Warning wrote:
 On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:07:06 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:02:32 -0400, Moritz Warning
 <moritzwarning web.de>  wrote:

 have you thought about just asking the authors of the Tango code in
 question?
 I would imagine they would say that they only see a minor resemblance
 in the api and asking wouldn't even be necessary from their point of
 view.

be located so until he is and agrees the proposed Phobos time module cannot be accepted." -Steve

Well, then let's point this out (we need to contact JC, that's the problem at heart). All the blaming doesn't help anyone.

Moritz, I think there is a misunderstanding somewhere. Following SHOO's request to add his date/time to Phobos, Walter received a phone call at home from a Tango representative. The representative stated that the Tango team (of which five people worked on the date/time code) finds that code infringing upon their license, which would make Phobos infringing if it accepted said code. Andrei
Apr 30 2010
next sibling parent reply dolive <dolive89 sinal.com> writes:
Andrei Alexandrescu д:

 On 04/30/2010 08:55 AM, Moritz Warning wrote:
 On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:07:06 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:02:32 -0400, Moritz Warning
 <moritzwarning web.de>  wrote:

 have you thought about just asking the authors of the Tango code in
 question?
 I would imagine they would say that they only see a minor resemblance
 in the api and asking wouldn't even be necessary from their point of
 view.

be located so until he is and agrees the proposed Phobos time module cannot be accepted." -Steve

Well, then let's point this out (we need to contact JC, that's the problem at heart). All the blaming doesn't help anyone.

Moritz, I think there is a misunderstanding somewhere. Following SHOO's request to add his date/time to Phobos, Walter received a phone call at home from a Tango representative. The representative stated that the Tango team (of which five people worked on the date/time code) finds that code infringing upon their license, which would make Phobos infringing if it accepted said code. Andrei

Prohibit tango use dmd1
Apr 30 2010
parent another lurker <lurker lurk.urk> writes:
== Quote from dolive (dolive89 sinal.com)'s article
 Andrei Alexandrescu д:
 On 04/30/2010 08:55 AM, Moritz Warning wrote:
 On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:07:06 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:02:32 -0400, Moritz Warning
 <moritzwarning web.de>  wrote:

 have you thought about just asking the authors of the Tango code in
 question?
 I would imagine they would say that they only see a minor resemblance
 in the api and asking wouldn't even be necessary from their point of
 view.

be located so until he is and agrees the proposed Phobos time module cannot be accepted." -Steve

Well, then let's point this out (we need to contact JC, that's the problem at heart). All the blaming doesn't help anyone.

Moritz, I think there is a misunderstanding somewhere. Following SHOO's request to add his date/time to Phobos, Walter received a phone call at home from a Tango representative. The representative stated that the Tango team (of which five people worked on the date/time code) finds that code infringing upon their license, which would make Phobos infringing if it accepted said code. Andrei


Yes. They shown their true face today. I deleted all Tango code on my disk and I will never use it. It is poison.
Apr 30 2010
prev sibling parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 04/30/2010 03:07 PM, Moritz Warning wrote:
 On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 10:12:53 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 On 04/30/2010 08:55 AM, Moritz Warning wrote:
 On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:07:06 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:02:32 -0400, Moritz Warning
 <moritzwarning web.de>   wrote:

 have you thought about just asking the authors of the Tango code in
 question?
 I would imagine they would say that they only see a minor resemblance
 in the api and asking wouldn't even be necessary from their point of
 view.

cannot be located so until he is and agrees the proposed Phobos time module cannot be accepted." -Steve

Well, then let's point this out (we need to contact JC, that's the problem at heart). All the blaming doesn't help anyone.

Moritz, I think there is a misunderstanding somewhere. Following SHOO's request to add his date/time to Phobos, Walter received a phone call at home from a Tango representative. The representative stated that the Tango team (of which five people worked on the date/time code) finds that code infringing upon their license, which would make Phobos infringing if it accepted said code. Andrei

Hi Andrei, thanks for the reply. I don't know how the phone call was worded, of course. Nor can I speak for the caller. Whatever, from my point of view, the message should have been that Phobos probably has problems with the code due it's high license awarenes and they could solve the issue by just asking A, B and C to be sure. Even those authors probably don't even think it would have been necessary in this case. The call should have been intended to help Phobos without interfering with the authors rights. If it really had the "you steal our code" undertone you describe, then it's quite unfortunate, but does not represent what at least most Tango contributers think.

It did, and (as unfortunately exemplified by Steve) it doesn't quite matter what some of Tango contributers think. I will leave it to Walter to disclose the actual words used if he finds it appropriate. They are not light. Historically Walter has been very quiet regarding this and similar dealings, and I have respected that. We both despise politics, and my perception is that this attitude is common to the other Phobos developers. His overly nice and non-political attitude has led to the odd situation where he is consistently framed as the bad guy, even in this situation which is as clear cut as it could ever get. Maybe the time has come for the truth to come forth.
 Has anyone bothered to ask the authors?
 It matters.

I don't know. Andrei
Apr 30 2010
parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote in message 
news:hrfdv8$1hbi$1 digitalmars.com...
 On 04/30/2010 03:07 PM, Moritz Warning wrote:
 If it really had the "you steal our code" undertone you describe, then
 it's quite unfortunate, but does not represent what at least most Tango
 contributers think.

It did, and (as unfortunately exemplified by Steve) it doesn't quite matter what some of Tango contributers think. I will leave it to Walter to disclose the actual words used if he finds it appropriate. They are not light.

Was it an anonymous message, or if not, has it been verified that it wasn't an impostor? I'm not asking for any names to be to be named, I've just been wondering if it's possible we may have all been duped by a phone troll? We've had trolls on this board who seemed to have a grudge against D.
Apr 30 2010
prev sibling parent fawcett uwindsor.ca writes:
On 10-04-29 10:49 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 On 04/29/2010 09:39 AM, SHOO wrote:
 Andrei Alexandrescu さんは書きました:
 Thanks! You are now a Phobos developer.

 Unfortunately you cannot commit
 your changes to std.date because it infringes on Tango's license.

 Andrei

What did I infringe the license of Tango for? For interfaces? For implements? I've written the codes without the intention. Please tell me the points that are the problem.

I don't know other details except that a Tango representative explicitly warned us about the potential infringement yesterday. You may want to check with the Tango team. I am sorry for the disappointment this must entail to you. The current direction considered for std.date is to take the design of Boost.Date_Time as a starting point. http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_42_0/doc/html/date_time.html

I wonder how hard it would be to do a simple transliteration of boost.date_time into D as a first step? Might it expedite development if we could take not just the design, but the actual working code, as a basis? The optimistic newbie in me imagines that such a transliteration wouldn't be too difficult, since so many C++ idioms map directly into D. Graham
Apr 30 2010
prev sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Moritz Warning wrote:
 Walter takes any possible copyright taint very serious.

Yes, I do. It is extremely important for D's future that D and Phobos be clear of any intellectual property legal problems. Phobos is now under the Boost license, which is the most liberal one we could find that was in common use and meets with corporate and lawyer approval. All submissions to Phobos must be under this license.
 Better someone told W about it before he does an emergency blow up of 
 phobos. ;)

Yes, I'm glad to hear about it sooner rather than later.
 Maybe you can talk to the Tango devs to clear up this matter?

I suggest that the Tango devs convert the Tango modules that can get full agreement by their respective devs be converted to the Boost license. The Boost license is free of the legal problems that BSD has, and is compatible with the Phobos license.
Apr 29 2010
next sibling parent Don <nospam nospam.com> writes:
Moritz Warning wrote:
 On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 09:24:22 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
 
 Moritz Warning wrote:

 Maybe you can talk to the Tango devs to clear up this matter?

full agreement by their respective devs be converted to the Boost license. The Boost license is free of the legal problems that BSD has, and is compatible with the Phobos license.

As far as I have heard, Tango changed it's license to be compatible with Phobos in the first place. But Phobos then changed it's license and now it's incompatible again.

That is 100% incorrect. Tango always used a more restrictive license than Phobos. Tango has always been able to use Phobos code, but the reverse does not apply.
 What were the reasons for Phobos to change the license?

The boost license is the closest equivalent to public domain.
Apr 29 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Moritz Warning wrote:
 On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 09:24:22 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
 
 Moritz Warning wrote:

 Maybe you can talk to the Tango devs to clear up this matter?

full agreement by their respective devs be converted to the Boost license. The Boost license is free of the legal problems that BSD has, and is compatible with the Phobos license.

As far as I have heard, Tango changed it's license to be compatible with Phobos in the first place.

Tango is originally based on Phobos code, and I gave explicit permission for it to be incorporated into the Tango project & BSD license, but the BSD license does not permit code to flow the other way without the explicit permission of the Tango devs. Some code has moved back to Phobos, in particular Sean & Don's work, because Sean & Don are the developers of that code and it is their prerogative to do what they please with it.
 But Phobos then changed it's license and now 
 it's incompatible again. 
 What were the reasons for Phobos to change the license?
 I suspect is was discussed before, do you have a link?

Phobos was formerly actually a collection of different licenses, Phobos 1.0 still is. Some was public domain. The reason it was switched (for Phobos 2) to Boost was: 1. Boost is corporate and lawyer approved, making it a no-brainer for commercial, professional use of Phobos 2. Boost is the most liberal license we were able to find 3. Public domain is not recognized in many countries 4. Having one license for Phobos makes it much easier to manage and deploy The perennial problem with the BSD license is the binary attribution clause. Tango believes it has a solution to this by embedding the appropriate string in object.d, but I don't know if this has been legally tested and it still puts a constant burden of explanation on the Tango team. It's just a problem that I can see no reason to adopt.
Apr 29 2010
prev sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Walter Bright" <newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:hrcbrr$2t7e$1 digitalmars.com...
 Moritz Warning wrote:

 Maybe you can talk to the Tango devs to clear up this matter?

I suggest that the Tango devs convert the Tango modules that can get full agreement by their respective devs be converted to the Boost license. The Boost license is free of the legal problems that BSD has, and is compatible with the Phobos license.

It looks like the Tango devs are pretty much settled on BSD-only with some hack to get around the binary attribution thing: http://www.dsource.org/projects/tango/ticket/1701 (*Shrug*, well, at least it's not as insanely verbose and impenetrable as Apache 2.0...) I *hate* licenses...(That's why I use the zlib one, none of the public domain problems, all of the freedoms that I've been told Boost offers, and none of Boost's idiotic over-verbosity.) ------------------------------- Not sent from an iPhone.
Apr 29 2010
next sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 It looks like the Tango devs are pretty much settled on BSD-only with some 
 hack to get around the binary attribution thing: 
 http://www.dsource.org/projects/tango/ticket/1701

The problem with the hack is everyone trying to use the library professionally will (if one is lucky) ask about the binary attribution thing, and one would have to convince them that the hack takes care of it. This puts a never ending burden on the team. If one is unlucky, they'll just avoid the library because of that license, and you'll never hear from them about the lost opportunity. Those options are bad and worse, hence changing the license is a much more attractive proposition going forward.
Apr 29 2010
prev sibling parent reply Don <nospam nospam.com> writes:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Walter Bright" <newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
 news:hrcbrr$2t7e$1 digitalmars.com...
 Moritz Warning wrote:

 Maybe you can talk to the Tango devs to clear up this matter?

agreement by their respective devs be converted to the Boost license. The Boost license is free of the legal problems that BSD has, and is compatible with the Phobos license.

It looks like the Tango devs are pretty much settled on BSD-only with some hack to get around the binary attribution thing: http://www.dsource.org/projects/tango/ticket/1701 (*Shrug*, well, at least it's not as insanely verbose and impenetrable as Apache 2.0...) I *hate* licenses...(That's why I use the zlib one, none of the public domain problems, all of the freedoms that I've been told Boost offers, and none of Boost's idiotic over-verbosity.)

Yeah, we all feel the same way. But I don't think the boost license is verbose. It's 4% of the length of the GPL: zlib: 957 characters boost: 1361 (1/3 of which comes from US legal requirements). Apache2: 9219 Academic free license3: 10332 GPL 3: 32069
Apr 29 2010
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Don" <nospam nospam.com> wrote in message 
news:hrclc9$gjg$1 digitalmars.com...
 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Walter Bright" <newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
 news:hrcbrr$2t7e$1 digitalmars.com...
 Moritz Warning wrote:

 Maybe you can talk to the Tango devs to clear up this matter?

full agreement by their respective devs be converted to the Boost license. The Boost license is free of the legal problems that BSD has, and is compatible with the Phobos license.

It looks like the Tango devs are pretty much settled on BSD-only with some hack to get around the binary attribution thing: http://www.dsource.org/projects/tango/ticket/1701 (*Shrug*, well, at least it's not as insanely verbose and impenetrable as Apache 2.0...) I *hate* licenses...(That's why I use the zlib one, none of the public domain problems, all of the freedoms that I've been told Boost offers, and none of Boost's idiotic over-verbosity.)

Yeah, we all feel the same way. But I don't think the boost license is verbose. It's 4% of the length of the GPL: zlib: 957 characters boost: 1361 (1/3 of which comes from US legal requirements). Apache2: 9219 Academic free license3: 10332 GPL 3: 32069

Saying a license isn't verbose because it's much shorter than the GPL is like saying a particular restaurant is good just because it's better than eating out of a dumpster. Besides, when 2/3 of...anything...is made up of sentences that are more than 60 words each (I counted), it's just plain badly written, period. (Seriously, 60+ words per sentence?! And the first one ends with a colon, so it's easy to argue it's one 120+ word sentence. Talk about run-on unreadability!) And then, naturally, the other 1/3 is all-caps. Seriously, were they *trying* to prevent people from understanding it? If so, I don't think they could have done a better job. (At least not without hiring the FSF's "Let's do everything we can to enure our profession is needed as much as possible" lawyers.)
Apr 29 2010
parent reply Don <nospam nospam.com> writes:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Don" <nospam nospam.com> wrote in message 
 news:hrclc9$gjg$1 digitalmars.com...
 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Walter Bright" <newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
 news:hrcbrr$2t7e$1 digitalmars.com...
 Moritz Warning wrote:

 Maybe you can talk to the Tango devs to clear up this matter?

full agreement by their respective devs be converted to the Boost license. The Boost license is free of the legal problems that BSD has, and is compatible with the Phobos license.

some hack to get around the binary attribution thing: http://www.dsource.org/projects/tango/ticket/1701 (*Shrug*, well, at least it's not as insanely verbose and impenetrable as Apache 2.0...) I *hate* licenses...(That's why I use the zlib one, none of the public domain problems, all of the freedoms that I've been told Boost offers, and none of Boost's idiotic over-verbosity.)

But I don't think the boost license is verbose. It's 4% of the length of the GPL: zlib: 957 characters boost: 1361 (1/3 of which comes from US legal requirements). Apache2: 9219 Academic free license3: 10332 GPL 3: 32069

Saying a license isn't verbose because it's much shorter than the GPL is like saying a particular restaurant is good just because it's better than eating out of a dumpster.

Well, there's not many places to eat in this town, outside of the dumpsters. Boost and zlib were the only ones I found.
 Seriously, were they *trying* to prevent people from understanding it?  If
 so, I don't think they could have done a better job. (At least not without 
 hiring the FSF's "Let's do everything we can to enure our profession is 
 needed as much as possible" lawyers.)

Have you read the rationale statement for the Boost license? (on the boost website). The really appalling one is the OSI license. There's a huge document which purports to explain the license, but it doesn't explain it at all. It's just a polemic against the GPL. The FSF is much clearer than the OSI.
Apr 29 2010
parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Don" <nospam nospam.com> wrote in message 
news:hrcpir$ob3$1 digitalmars.com...
 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Don" <nospam nospam.com> wrote in message 
 news:hrclc9$gjg$1 digitalmars.com...
 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 I *hate* licenses...(That's why I use the zlib one, none of the public 
 domain problems, all of the freedoms that I've been told Boost offers, 
 and none of Boost's idiotic over-verbosity.)

But I don't think the boost license is verbose. It's 4% of the length of the GPL: zlib: 957 characters boost: 1361 (1/3 of which comes from US legal requirements). Apache2: 9219 Academic free license3: 10332 GPL 3: 32069

Saying a license isn't verbose because it's much shorter than the GPL is like saying a particular restaurant is good just because it's better than eating out of a dumpster.

Well, there's not many places to eat in this town, outside of the dumpsters. Boost and zlib were the only ones I found.

Hee hee :)
 Seriously, were they *trying* to prevent people from understanding it? 
 If
 so, I don't think they could have done a better job. (At least not 
 without hiring the FSF's "Let's do everything we can to enure our 
 profession is needed as much as possible" lawyers.)

Have you read the rationale statement for the Boost license? (on the boost website).

I have, but I just read through it again to make sure I didn't miss anything. The only part of my complaint that it seems to address is the all-caps section. But even with that, all it actually says is "Capitalization of these particular provisions is a US legal mandate for consumer protection. (Diane Cabell)" and provides no source and no further details about the mandate. (BTW, Figures that the US gov would require consumer-protection text to be in a form that's well known to be difficult to read, and then try to pretend that doing so is somehow in the consumer's best interest instead of corporate best interest.) I did find this bit interesting though: "Do I have to copyright/license trivial files? Even a test file that just contains an empty main() should have a copyright. Files without copyrights make corporate lawyers nervous, and that's a barrier to adoption." Going by what's said there, I think I actually *like* that. And by that I mean, using one blanket license file for the whole source and not being explicit in every individual file. As much as I dislike about the GPL, I've actually always been somewhat conflicted about it. I hate the verbosity, viral nature, inhibits adoption, inability to make much use of GPLed stuff when I've been working in a real commercial environment, etc. But, I love that it prevents the aiding of proprietary corporate crap. If some big corporation is going to try to push some closed-off crap (like Apple's iP*'s, cell phones, just about any game console, and software that I need to be able to rely on even if the company goes down or chooses to drop support), then I *want* them to be forced to re-invent everything (which they'll inevitably do poorly) to help keep the door open for a better, less anti-consumer, competitor. So if there's something that's only flaw is that it makes corporate lawyers nervous, I'd say that sounds like a step closer to having the best of both worlds: keeping proprietary corporate crap out of the loop *without* actually being viral.
 The really appalling one is the OSI license. There's a huge document which 
 purports to explain the license, but it doesn't explain it at all. It's 
 just a polemic against the GPL. The FSF is much clearer than the OSI.

Good to know. I wasn't really familiar with that one. ------------------------------- Sent from my PC while pretending that people care what it's sent from.
Apr 29 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent Moritz Warning <moritzwarning web.de> writes:
On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 23:39:09 +0900, SHOO wrote:

 Andrei Alexandrescu さんは書きました:
 Thanks! You are now a Phobos developer.

> Unfortunately you cannot commit
 your changes to std.date because it infringes on Tango's license.
 
 Andrei

What did I infringe the license of Tango for? For interfaces? For implements? I've written the codes without the intention. Please tell me the points that are the problem.

Walter takes any possible copyright taint very serious. Better someone told W about it before he does an emergency blow up of phobos. ;) Maybe you can talk to the Tango devs to clear up this matter?
Apr 29 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent Moritz Warning <moritzwarning web.de> writes:
On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 09:24:22 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:

 Moritz Warning wrote:

 Maybe you can talk to the Tango devs to clear up this matter?

I suggest that the Tango devs convert the Tango modules that can get full agreement by their respective devs be converted to the Boost license. The Boost license is free of the legal problems that BSD has, and is compatible with the Phobos license.

As far as I have heard, Tango changed it's license to be compatible with Phobos in the first place. But Phobos then changed it's license and now it's incompatible again. What were the reasons for Phobos to change the license? I suspect is was discussed before, do you have a link? thanks, mwarning
Apr 29 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent reply retard <re tard.com.invalid> writes:
Thu, 29 Apr 2010 15:39:55 -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 Seriously, were they *trying* to prevent people from understanding it?
 If so, I don't think they could have done a better job. (At least not
 without hiring the FSF's "Let's do everything we can to enure our
 profession is needed as much as possible" lawyers.)

The rationale behind license text is to make it enforceable. If a lawyer cannot protect the author against infringement due to problems in the license text, the license is basically useless. If you have problems reading the text, some authorities such as the Creative Commons provide shiny graphical interfaces to the license. Of course, I'm sure no one will complain if you release all your work under a very liberal license or don't limit the use in any way. It's always a pleasure to steal good work. "What's yours is mine, what's mine isn't yours" - that's how the communism worked.
Apr 29 2010
parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"retard" <re tard.com.invalid> wrote in message 
news:hrcokt$lkb$1 digitalmars.com...
 Thu, 29 Apr 2010 15:39:55 -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 Seriously, were they *trying* to prevent people from understanding it?
 If so, I don't think they could have done a better job. (At least not
 without hiring the FSF's "Let's do everything we can to enure our
 profession is needed as much as possible" lawyers.)

The rationale behind license text is to make it enforceable. If a lawyer cannot protect the author against infringement due to problems in the license text, the license is basically useless.

I'm seeing some vague references to zlib being unenforceable, but I've yet to see anything remotely substantial to back it up. Or even an unsubstantiated-but-direct claim for that matter. I have no way to be remotely sure your argument here isn't a strawman WRT zlib.
 If you have problems reading the text, some authorities such as the
 Creative Commons provide shiny graphical interfaces to the license.

I never touch "simplified" explanations. The actual text of the license itself *is* the legal document. That other stuff...isn't. If push came to shove, how can I sensibly assume that a court would place precedence on the unofficial simplified version over the actual license itself? I can't, so the simplified versions are useless to me.
 Of
 course, I'm sure no one will complain if you release all your work under
 a very liberal license or don't limit the use in any way. It's always a
 pleasure to steal good work. "What's yours is mine, what's mine isn't
 yours" - that's how the communism worked.

Why stop at communism? Let's just invoke Godwin's law outright. That'll prove a point. "You're argument is like Nazism." There. That makes my argument the winning one now, right? ------------------------------- Not sent from an iPhone.
Apr 29 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent retard <re tard.com.invalid> writes:
Thu, 29 Apr 2010 16:17:03 -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 The actual text of the license
 itself *is* the legal document.

Yes.
 That other stuff...isn't. If push came
 to shove, how can I sensibly assume that a court would place precedence
 on the unofficial simplified version over the actual license itself? I
 can't, so the simplified versions are useless to me.

It's just there to guide you. They promise that the license works in expected ways if you liked the graphical explanation. It's like a higher order abstraction in programming languages. If you think CC doesn't work, direct your complaints to Larry Lessig, not me. My goal is just to make you use the most liberal license so I can steal as much as possible. It's only benefical to me if you don't care about licensing.
 Why stop at communism? Let's just invoke Godwin's law outright. That'll
 prove a point. "You're argument is like Nazism." There. That makes my
 argument the winning one now, right?

Of course you win. Playing the Nazi card always wins.
Apr 29 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent Moritz Warning <moritzwarning web.de> writes:
On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 11:34:19 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:

 Moritz Warning wrote:
 On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 09:24:22 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
 
 Moritz Warning wrote:

 Maybe you can talk to the Tango devs to clear up this matter?

full agreement by their respective devs be converted to the Boost license. The Boost license is free of the legal problems that BSD has, and is compatible with the Phobos license.

As far as I have heard, Tango changed it's license to be compatible with Phobos in the first place.

Tango is originally based on Phobos code, and I gave explicit permission for it to be incorporated into the Tango project & BSD license, but the BSD license does not permit code to flow the other way without the explicit permission of the Tango devs. Some code has moved back to Phobos, in particular Sean & Don's work, because Sean & Don are the developers of that code and it is their prerogative to do what they please with it.
 But Phobos then changed it's license and now it's incompatible again.
 What were the reasons for Phobos to change the license? I suspect is
 was discussed before, do you have a link?

Phobos was formerly actually a collection of different licenses, Phobos 1.0 still is. Some was public domain. The reason it was switched (for Phobos 2) to Boost was: 1. Boost is corporate and lawyer approved, making it a no-brainer for commercial, professional use of Phobos 2. Boost is the most liberal license we were able to find 3. Public domain is not recognized in many countries 4. Having one license for Phobos makes it much easier to manage and deploy The perennial problem with the BSD license is the binary attribution clause. Tango believes it has a solution to this by embedding the appropriate string in object.d, but I don't know if this has been legally tested and it still puts a constant burden of explanation on the Tango team. It's just a problem that I can see no reason to adopt.

Thank you for the explanation! :)
Apr 29 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent Moritz Warning <moritzwarning web.de> writes:
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 18:02:27 +0900, SHOO wrote:

 Andrei Alexandrescu さんは書きました:
 On 04/29/2010 09:39 AM, SHOO wrote:
 Andrei Alexandrescu さんは書きました:
 Thanks! You are now a Phobos developer.

> Unfortunately you cannot commit
 your changes to std.date because it infringes on Tango's license.

 Andrei

What did I infringe the license of Tango for? For interfaces? For implements? I've written the codes without the intention. Please tell me the points that are the problem.

I don't know other details except that a Tango representative explicitly warned us about the potential infringement yesterday. You may want to check with the Tango team. I am sorry for the disappointment this must entail to you. The current direction considered for std.date is to take the design of Boost.Date_Time as a starting point. http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_42_0/doc/html/date_time.html Andrei

Hmm... OK, I'll try to rewrite it. I'll thoroughly eliminate codes that resembles Tango's one by the next contribution. And I intend to refer to boost::time. Unfortunately, I cannot reply for a while so that there is a schedule. Bye.

Hi, have you thought about just asking the authors of the Tango code in question? I would imagine they would say that they only see a minor resemblance in the api and asking wouldn't even be necessary from their point of view. But since W/Phobos is very copyright sensitive, I'm sure they will give the permission.
Apr 30 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:02:32 -0400, Moritz Warning <moritzwarning web.de>  
wrote:

 have you thought about just asking the authors of the Tango code in
 question?
 I would imagine they would say that they only see a minor resemblance in
 the api and asking wouldn't even be necessary from their point of view.

 But since W/Phobos is very copyright sensitive, I'm sure they will give
 the permission.

At least one of the authors (John Chapman) is MIA. Nobody can find him. This was Walter's message: "In order to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, there won't be any submissions to Phobos that are based on Tango code, even simply Tango interfaces, without the explicit permission of all authors of that code. One of the major authors of the Tango time module, John Chapman, cannot be located so until he is and agrees the proposed Phobos time module cannot be accepted." -Steve
Apr 30 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent Moritz Warning <moritzwarning web.de> writes:
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:07:06 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:02:32 -0400, Moritz Warning
 <moritzwarning web.de> wrote:
 
 have you thought about just asking the authors of the Tango code in
 question?
 I would imagine they would say that they only see a minor resemblance
 in the api and asking wouldn't even be necessary from their point of
 view.

be located so until he is and agrees the proposed Phobos time module cannot be accepted." -Steve

Well, then let's point this out (we need to contact JC, that's the problem at heart). All the blaming doesn't help anyone.
Apr 30 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent Moritz Warning <moritzwarning web.de> writes:
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 10:12:53 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 On 04/30/2010 08:55 AM, Moritz Warning wrote:
 On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:07:06 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:02:32 -0400, Moritz Warning
 <moritzwarning web.de>  wrote:

 have you thought about just asking the authors of the Tango code in
 question?
 I would imagine they would say that they only see a minor resemblance
 in the api and asking wouldn't even be necessary from their point of
 view.

cannot be located so until he is and agrees the proposed Phobos time module cannot be accepted." -Steve

Well, then let's point this out (we need to contact JC, that's the problem at heart). All the blaming doesn't help anyone.

Moritz, I think there is a misunderstanding somewhere. Following SHOO's request to add his date/time to Phobos, Walter received a phone call at home from a Tango representative. The representative stated that the Tango team (of which five people worked on the date/time code) finds that code infringing upon their license, which would make Phobos infringing if it accepted said code. Andrei

Hi Andrei, thanks for the reply. I don't know how the phone call was worded, of course. Nor can I speak for the caller. Whatever, from my point of view, the message should have been that Phobos probably has problems with the code due it's high license awarenes and they could solve the issue by just asking A, B and C to be sure. Even those authors probably don't even think it would have been necessary in this case. The call should have been intended to help Phobos without interfering with the authors rights. If it really had the "you steal our code" undertone you describe, then it's quite unfortunate, but does not represent what at least most Tango contributers think. Has anyone bothered to ask the authors? It matters.
Apr 30 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent Moritz Warning <moritzwarning web.de> writes:
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 20:07:21 +0000, Moritz Warning wrote:

[..]
 Has anyone bothered to ask the authors? It matters.

Apr 30 2010
prev sibling parent "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 16:11:10 -0400, Moritz Warning <moritzwarning web.de>  
wrote:

 On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 20:07:21 +0000, Moritz Warning wrote:

 [..]
 Has anyone bothered to ask the authors? It matters.


Nobody exactly asked me, but I think my opinion on the matter is clear :) The other authors I can see on the copyright notice are John Chapman and Kris Bell. There is another author in tango.time.ISO8601, Matti Niemenmaa. However, I'm not sure any code/api from that file was used in SHOO's lib (anyone? I refuse to look at any more source). I remember when Matti was developing it (we were kind of working in parallel) that it pretty much is its own separate module. I have read somewhere that there are 5 authors, I don't know who the other author(s) might be. -Steve
Apr 30 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Masahiro Nakagawa" <repeatedly gmail.com> writes:
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 22:49:56 +0900, Andrei Alexandrescu  
<SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote:

 Hello,


 Following the great work that Masahiro Nakagawa and SHOO offered to  
 Phobos, we are inviting them to join the Phobos developer ranks.

 Once the community review of the proposed libraries concludes with  
 approval, Masahiro and SHOO will be able to commit the modules to Phobos  
 themselves.

 In case you two accept the invitation, please create accounts on  
 dsource.org if you don't have and the let me know of your IDs.

I am delighted to accept your invitation. My ID on dsource is 2849. http://www.dsource.org/forums/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=2849
Apr 29 2010
parent Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 04/29/2010 04:55 AM, Masahiro Nakagawa wrote:
 On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 22:49:56 +0900, Andrei Alexandrescu 
 <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote:
 
 Hello,


 Following the great work that Masahiro Nakagawa and SHOO offered to 
 Phobos, we are inviting them to join the Phobos developer ranks.

 Once the community review of the proposed libraries concludes with 
 approval, Masahiro and SHOO will be able to commit the modules to 
 Phobos themselves.

 In case you two accept the invitation, please create accounts on 
 dsource.org if you don't have and the let me know of your IDs.

I am delighted to accept your invitation. My ID on dsource is 2849. http://www.dsource.org/forums/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=2849

Perfect, thank you! Added. Welcome to Phobos! Andrei
Apr 29 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent "Masahiro Nakagawa" <repeatedly gmail.com> writes:
On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 22:21:04 +0900, Andrei Alexandrescu  
<SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote:

 On 04/29/2010 04:55 AM, Masahiro Nakagawa wrote:
 On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 22:49:56 +0900, Andrei Alexandrescu
 <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote:

 Hello,


 Following the great work that Masahiro Nakagawa and SHOO offered to
 Phobos, we are inviting them to join the Phobos developer ranks.

 Once the community review of the proposed libraries concludes with
 approval, Masahiro and SHOO will be able to commit the modules to
 Phobos themselves.

 In case you two accept the invitation, please create accounts on
 dsource.org if you don't have and the let me know of your IDs.

I am delighted to accept your invitation. My ID on dsource is 2849. http://www.dsource.org/forums/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=2849

Perfect, thank you! Added. Welcome to Phobos!

Thank you for adding me to Phobos! I'm so glad :)
Apr 29 2010
prev sibling parent dolive <dolive89 sinal.com> writes:
Andrei Alexandrescu д:

 Hello,
 
 
 Following the great work that Masahiro Nakagawa and SHOO offered to 
 Phobos, we are inviting them to join the Phobos developer ranks.
 
 Once the community review of the proposed libraries concludes with 
 approval, Masahiro and SHOO will be able to commit the modules to Phobos 
 themselves.
 
 In case you two accept the invitation, please create accounts on 
 dsource.org if you don't have and the let me know of your IDs.
 
 
 Andrei

port tango code to phobos will be infringement ? please W don't maintain(update) d1
Apr 29 2010