www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.announce - Ares 0.15 release

reply Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
This version is compatible with DMD .148 and, as of 0.14, should also 
compile on Linux with DMD.  There have also been some additions to 
std.atomic, and the std.math package is coming along fairly well.  It 
can be obtained in the usual place:

http://www.dsource.org/projects/ares/

Please see the Ares forum or the included changelog for a more detailed 
list of updates.


Sean
Feb 26 2006
next sibling parent reply bobef <bobef lessequal.com> writes:
One thing that I do not understand is why 'the second coming' of phobos 
is needed?

Sean Kelly wrote:
 This version is compatible with DMD .148 and, as of 0.14, should also 
 compile on Linux with DMD.  There have also been some additions to 
 std.atomic, and the std.math package is coming along fairly well.  It 
 can be obtained in the usual place:
 
 http://www.dsource.org/projects/ares/
 
 Please see the Ares forum or the included changelog for a more detailed 
 list of updates.
 
 
 Sean

Feb 27 2006
parent reply Hasan Aljudy <hasan.aljudy gmail.com> writes:
bobef wrote:
 One thing that I do not understand is why 'the second coming' of phobos 
 is needed?
 
 Sean Kelly wrote:
 
 This version is compatible with DMD .148 and, as of 0.14, should also 
 compile on Linux with DMD.  There have also been some additions to 
 std.atomic, and the std.math package is coming along fairly well.  It 
 can be obtained in the usual place:

 http://www.dsource.org/projects/ares/

 Please see the Ares forum or the included changelog for a more 
 detailed list of updates.


 Sean


I appreciate the efforts being done, but I just can't go thru the trouble of literally *replacing* phobos on my system with Ares. I just can't be bothered with that. I don't recompile phobos or do any of that crazy stuff (not to mention compile a linux kernel!!) I recently discovered that Mango is actually not only for server side programming but a very good library/framework. What I'm trying to say is, why not instead of replacing phobos *from scratch*, just build a usable framework on top of it!!
Feb 27 2006
next sibling parent bobef <bobef lessequal.com> writes:
Hasan Aljudy wrote:

 I appreciate the efforts being done, but I just can't go thru the 
 trouble of literally *replacing* phobos on my system with Ares. I just 
 can't be bothered with that.
 I don't recompile phobos or do any of that crazy stuff (not to mention 
 compile a linux kernel!!)

I am sure one would not try to replace phobos without a really good reason... I just wish I knew this reason...
Feb 27 2006
prev sibling parent Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
Hasan Aljudy wrote:
 
 I appreciate the efforts being done, but I just can't go thru the 
 trouble of literally *replacing* phobos on my system with Ares. I just 
 can't be bothered with that.
 I don't recompile phobos or do any of that crazy stuff (not to mention 
 compile a linux kernel!!)
 
 I recently discovered that Mango is actually not only for server side 
 programming but a very good library/framework.
 
 What I'm trying to say is, why not instead of replacing phobos *from 
 scratch*, just build a usable framework on top of it!!

Largely because some of my issues with Phobos are fairly low-level, and I wanted to attempt building a "better" standard library from the ground up. I've considered having Phobos run on top of Ares in a compatibility area, but as I don't actually use Phobos for anything it would be a lot of work for very little return. Beginning with the next release I'll probably ship a pre-built Linux library just as I'm doing for Windows. It's really just a matter of automating the Linux build process a bit better--I have the whole process down to a single batch file on Windows. Sean
Feb 27 2006
prev sibling parent reply "Todor Totev" <umbra.tenebris list.ru> writes:
Sean,
what license does Ares use?
As of Ares 0.13 I couldn't find any file with clear license.
And the most strange thing is that some files from io does have
BSD-license with advertising clause which appears to apply to
only 2 or 3 files
Regards,
Todor



On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 02:44:55 +0200, Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> wrote:

 This version is compatible with DMD .148 and, as of 0.14, should also =

 compile on Linux with DMD.  There have also been some additions to  =

 std.atomic, and the std.math package is coming along fairly well.  It =

 can be obtained in the usual place:

 http://www.dsource.org/projects/ares/

 Please see the Ares forum or the included changelog for a more detaile=

 list of updates.


 Sean

Feb 27 2006
parent reply Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
Todor Totev wrote:
 Sean,
 what license does Ares use?

Sorry about that. I'll get file headers in before the next release. The C headers are public domain, and what's in 'std' is subject to some form of the artistic license. That is, you can do whatever you want with the code, but please leave module headers in place (ie. don't claim the source code is yours).
 As of Ares 0.13 I couldn't find any file with clear license.
 And the most strange thing is that some files from io does have
 BSD-license with advertising clause which appears to apply to
 only 2 or 3 files

The io modules are from Mango and are subject to whatever restrictions Kris has placed on them. I'll see about providing consistent license language for the next release. What will probably happen is modules will have an author to attribute the work to but the license will be otherwise identical. Modules imported from Phobos are another consideration, but I think this approach should apply there as well. Sean
Feb 27 2006
parent reply Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
Sean Kelly wrote:
 Todor Totev wrote:
 Sean,
 what license does Ares use?

Sorry about that. I'll get file headers in before the next release.

I've added licenses to modules that lacked them. std.math.special still needs one, but it's from Don's MathExtra library so I'll need to sort that out separately. Sean
Feb 27 2006
parent reply Don Clugston <dac nospam.com.au> writes:
Sean Kelly wrote:
 Sean Kelly wrote:
 Todor Totev wrote:
 Sean,
 what license does Ares use?

Sorry about that. I'll get file headers in before the next release.

I've added licenses to modules that lacked them. std.math.special still needs one, but it's from Don's MathExtra library so I'll need to sort that out separately.

Actually I don't care. Public domain or something like the Phobos license is fine by me. But as short as possible -- I really *hate* those files where there's 100 lines of legalese and 2 lines of code. What I'd really like to find is some kind of "non-infect" free license for libraries. That is, you can do anything you like with this code, except that if you redistribute the source code AS SOURCE CODE, it must remain with the same license. So that if it's included in a GPL project, that single file doesn't get GPLed, and if it's in a commercial library where the source is sold, that single file remains free. But since I don't know of any license that does that, any unrestricted license (including public domain) will do.
Feb 27 2006
next sibling parent reply Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
Don Clugston wrote:
 Sean Kelly wrote:
 Sean Kelly wrote:
 Todor Totev wrote:
 Sean,
 what license does Ares use?

Sorry about that. I'll get file headers in before the next release.

I've added licenses to modules that lacked them. std.math.special still needs one, but it's from Don's MathExtra library so I'll need to sort that out separately.

Actually I don't care. Public domain or something like the Phobos license is fine by me. But as short as possible -- I really *hate* those files where there's 100 lines of legalese and 2 lines of code. What I'd really like to find is some kind of "non-infect" free license for libraries. That is, you can do anything you like with this code, except that if you redistribute the source code AS SOURCE CODE, it must remain with the same license. So that if it's included in a GPL project, that single file doesn't get GPLed, and if it's in a commercial library where the source is sold, that single file remains free.

The BSD (artistic) license is about as close as I've found, and is what I'm using for the Ares source for pretty much the same reason as you've indicated--I really don't care what people do with my code so long as they don't claim to have written it.
 But since I don't know of any license that does that, any unrestricted 
 license (including public domain) will do.

Thanks. Sean
Feb 28 2006
parent Don Clugston <dac nospam.com.au> writes:
Sean Kelly wrote:
 Don Clugston wrote:
 Sean Kelly wrote:
 Sean Kelly wrote:
 Todor Totev wrote:
 Sean,
 what license does Ares use?

Sorry about that. I'll get file headers in before the next release.

I've added licenses to modules that lacked them. std.math.special still needs one, but it's from Don's MathExtra library so I'll need to sort that out separately.

Actually I don't care. Public domain or something like the Phobos license is fine by me. But as short as possible -- I really *hate* those files where there's 100 lines of legalese and 2 lines of code. What I'd really like to find is some kind of "non-infect" free license for libraries. That is, you can do anything you like with this code, except that if you redistribute the source code AS SOURCE CODE, it must remain with the same license. So that if it's included in a GPL project, that single file doesn't get GPLed, and if it's in a commercial library where the source is sold, that single file remains free.

The BSD (artistic) license is about as close as I've found, and is what I'm using for the Ares source for pretty much the same reason as you've indicated--I really don't care what people do with my code so long as they don't claim to have written it.

Yup. I'm pretty sure that's already covered by plagiarism, though. It's certainly unethical. I've always believed that anyone that plagiarises code is not going to behave differently if there's a license on the code... but I could be wrong. Still, BSD license does seems to be good for reassuring everyone that there are no legal issues with the code.
 But since I don't know of any license that does that, any unrestricted 
 license (including public domain) will do.

Thanks. Sean

Feb 28 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Walter Bright" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
"Don Clugston" <dac nospam.com.au> wrote in message 
news:du0v94$oa8$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Actually I don't care. Public domain or something like the Phobos license 
 is fine by me. But as short as possible -- I really *hate* those files 
 where there's 100 lines of legalese and 2 lines of code.

Yup. For the simpler files, I've just been making them public domain. I don't think there's any "intellectual property" in a list of enums or declarations.
Mar 10 2006
parent "Ameer Armaly" <ameer_armaly hotmail.com> writes:
"Walter Bright" <newshound digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:duttsc$1lfb$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 "Don Clugston" <dac nospam.com.au> wrote in message 
 news:du0v94$oa8$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Actually I don't care. Public domain or something like the Phobos license 
 is fine by me. But as short as possible -- I really *hate* those files 
 where there's 100 lines of legalese and 2 lines of code.

Yup. For the simpler files, I've just been making them public domain. I don't think there's any "intellectual property" in a list of enums or declarations.

jeopardizes my company's situation, since having constants that are named the same across multiple programs causes major financial loss. You must've taken my idea, despite the fact that that's the only way to do it... I'll see you in court!"
Mar 11 2006
prev sibling parent reply Bastiaan Veelo <Bastiaan.N.Veelo ntnu.no> writes:
Don Clugston wrote:
 Actually I don't care. Public domain or something like the Phobos 
 license is fine by me. But as short as possible -- I really *hate* those 
 files where there's 100 lines of legalese and 2 lines of code.

It appears you cannot simply donate files to the public domain. According to Lawrence Rosen [1], an attorney who served for many years as general counsel and secretary of the Open Source Initiative, "there is no accepted way to dedicate an original work of authorship to the public domain before the copyright term for that work expires. A license is the only recognized way to authorize others to undertake the authors’ exclusive copyright rights." This is the raison d'être of all-permissive licenses. I don't think you need the complete license text in every file. Raymond and Raymond [2] tell us that "It is not necessary to include a copy of the license in every source file, but it is a good idea for the header comment to refer readers to the license file with a comment like this: This program is open source. For license terms, see the LICENSE file."
 What I'd really like to find is some kind of "non-infect" free license 
 for libraries. That is, you can do anything you like with this code, 
 except that if you redistribute the source code AS SOURCE CODE, it must 
 remain with the same license. So that if it's included in a GPL project, 
 that single file doesn't get GPLed, and if it's in a commercial library 
 where the source is sold, that single file remains free.
 But since I don't know of any license that does that, any unrestricted 
 license (including public domain) will do.

The MIT license [3] does this. The license itself consists of a single sentence, followed by a disclaimer. Best regards, Bastiaan Veelo [1] Lawrence Rosen, 2004, "Open Source Licensing -- Software Freedom and Intellectual Property Law", Prentice Hall, New Yersey, page 74, http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch05.pdf [2] Raymond E.S.; Raymond, C.O., 2002, Licensing HOWTO [draft OSI working paper], http://www.catb.org/~esr/Licensing-HOWTO.html [3] http://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php
Mar 18 2006
parent reply Don Clugston <dac nospam.com.au> writes:
Bastiaan Veelo wrote:
 Don Clugston wrote:
 Actually I don't care. Public domain or something like the Phobos 
 license is fine by me. But as short as possible -- I really *hate* 
 those files where there's 100 lines of legalese and 2 lines of code.

It appears you cannot simply donate files to the public domain. According to Lawrence Rosen [1], an attorney who served for many years as general counsel and secretary of the Open Source Initiative, "there is no accepted way to dedicate an original work of authorship to the public domain before the copyright term for that work expires. A license is the only recognized way to authorize others to undertake the authors’ exclusive copyright rights." This is the raison d'être of all-permissive licenses.

Interesting. I read somewhere that the US library of congress has a special provision for shareware, and that by paying them a filing fee you get public domain in practice. I doubt many people have actually done that, however. I suspect that public domain works OK in some countries but not others. As always, the legal system is several decades behind reality...
 I don't think you need the complete license text in every file. Raymond
 and Raymond [2] tell us that "It is not necessary to include a copy of
 the license in every source file, but it is a good idea for the header
 comment to refer readers to the license file with a comment like this:
 This program is open source.  For license terms, see the LICENSE file."

That's great news. I will do that from now on.
 What I'd really like to find is some kind of "non-infect" free license 
 for libraries. That is, you can do anything you like with this code, 
 except that if you redistribute the source code AS SOURCE CODE, it 
 must remain with the same license. So that if it's included in a GPL 
 project, that single file doesn't get GPLed, and if it's in a 
 commercial library where the source is sold, that single file remains 
 free.
 But since I don't know of any license that does that, any unrestricted 
 license (including public domain) will do.

The MIT license [3] does this. The license itself consists of a single sentence, followed by a disclaimer.

Thanks!
 Best regards,
 Bastiaan Veelo
 
 
 [1] Lawrence Rosen, 2004, "Open Source Licensing -- Software Freedom and
 Intellectual Property Law", Prentice Hall, New Yersey, page 74,
 http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch05.pdf
 
 [2] Raymond E.S.; Raymond, C.O., 2002, Licensing HOWTO [draft OSI
 working paper], http://www.catb.org/~esr/Licensing-HOWTO.html
 
 [3] http://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php

Mar 19 2006
parent Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
Don Clugston wrote:
 Bastiaan Veelo wrote:
 Don Clugston wrote:

 I don't think you need the complete license text in every file. Raymond
 and Raymond [2] tell us that "It is not necessary to include a copy of
 the license in every source file, but it is a good idea for the header
 comment to refer readers to the license file with a comment like this:
 This program is open source.  For license terms, see the LICENSE file."

That's great news. I will do that from now on.

Same here.
 
 What I'd really like to find is some kind of "non-infect" free 
 license for libraries. That is, you can do anything you like with 
 this code, except that if you redistribute the source code AS SOURCE 
 CODE, it must remain with the same license. So that if it's included 
 in a GPL project, that single file doesn't get GPLed, and if it's in 
 a commercial library where the source is sold, that single file 
 remains free.
 But since I don't know of any license that does that, any 
 unrestricted license (including public domain) will do.

The MIT license [3] does this. The license itself consists of a single sentence, followed by a disclaimer.

Thanks!

Very nice. I'll be using this for the C headers in Ares. And others on request, as it's easiest to simply use a single license for an entire project. Sean
Mar 20 2006