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
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.


I'm happy to join member of 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.


 I'm happy to join member of 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.


 I'm happy to join member of 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 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.


 I'm happy to join member of 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
parent reply "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
parent reply 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.


 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


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
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.


 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


 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.


 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


 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.


 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


 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


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 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.


 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


 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
next sibling parent reply 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.


The authors who can be reached atm., of course. :)
Apr 30 2010
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.


 The authors who can be reached atm., of course. :)


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 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.


 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


 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.


 I'm happy to join member of 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 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.


 I'm happy to join member of 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
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 reply 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
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?


 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. 


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?


Phobos was mostly public domain, which has legal problems (eg in Japan).
The boost license is the closest equivalent to public domain.
Apr 29 2010
prev sibling parent reply 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?


 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.


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
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?


 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.


 
 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 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?


 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.)


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?


 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.)


 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
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 reply "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
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 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?


 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.)


 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.


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.)


 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.


 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 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 reply 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
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