www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Tango vs Phobos

reply Graham St Jack <graham.stjack internode.on.net> writes:
Quite a while ago there was talk of rearranging Tango and Phobos so that 
they share the same runtime, allowing BOTH libraries to be available in 
the same compiler installation.

It looks to me as though D2 is stabilising, so now seems to be a good 
time to rationalise the two libraries in D2. I use D2 because I want the 
const stuff (and some other nice things too), but that locks me out of 
Tango and all the other libraries that use it, most notably GUI libraries.

Is anything happening on this front?
Aug 08 2008
next sibling parent reply "Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> writes:
"Graham St Jack" <graham.stjack internode.on.net> wrote in message 
news:g7j16v$tfs$1 digitalmars.com...

 Quite a while ago there was talk of rearranging Tango and Phobos so that
 they share the same runtime, allowing BOTH libraries to be available in
 the same compiler installation.

 It looks to me as though D2 is stabilising, so now seems to be a good
 time to rationalise the two libraries in D2. I use D2 because I want the
 const stuff (and some other nice things too), but that locks me out of
 Tango and all the other libraries that use it, most notably GUI libraries.

 Is anything happening on this front?


Well D2 forked around the same time as the D conference last year, at which 
that conclusion was reached, and since then W has made very little progress 
on merging the Phobos and Tango runtime libraries, instead focusing on new 
D2 features.  *shrug*
Aug 08 2008
parent reply Graham St Jack <graham.stjack internode.on.net> writes:
On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 00:32:38 -0400, Jarrett Billingsley wrote:


 "Graham St Jack" <graham.stjack internode.on.net> wrote in message
 news:g7j16v$tfs$1 digitalmars.com...

 Quite a while ago there was talk of rearranging Tango and Phobos so
 that they share the same runtime, allowing BOTH libraries to be
 available in the same compiler installation.

 It looks to me as though D2 is stabilising, so now seems to be a good
 time to rationalise the two libraries in D2. I use D2 because I want
 the const stuff (and some other nice things too), but that locks me out
 of Tango and all the other libraries that use it, most notably GUI
 libraries.

 Is anything happening on this front?


 
 Well D2 forked around the same time as the D conference last year, at
 which that conclusion was reached, and since then W has made very little
 progress on merging the Phobos and Tango runtime libraries, instead
 focusing on new D2 features.  *shrug*


Ok - well, I hope that will change soon.
Aug 08 2008
next sibling parent downs <default_357-line yahoo.de> writes:
Graham St Jack wrote:

 On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 00:32:38 -0400, Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
 

 "Graham St Jack" <graham.stjack internode.on.net> wrote in message
 news:g7j16v$tfs$1 digitalmars.com...

 Quite a while ago there was talk of rearranging Tango and Phobos so
 that they share the same runtime, allowing BOTH libraries to be
 available in the same compiler installation.

 It looks to me as though D2 is stabilising, so now seems to be a good
 time to rationalise the two libraries in D2. I use D2 because I want
 the const stuff (and some other nice things too), but that locks me out
 of Tango and all the other libraries that use it, most notably GUI
 libraries.

 Is anything happening on this front?


 Well D2 forked around the same time as the D conference last year, at
 which that conclusion was reached, and since then W has made very little
 progress on merging the Phobos and Tango runtime libraries, instead
 focusing on new D2 features.  *shrug*


 
 Ok - well, I hope that will change soon.


I think we all share that sentiment.
Aug 08 2008
prev sibling parent reply "Bill Baxter" <wbaxter gmail.com> writes:
On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Graham St Jack
<graham.stjack internode.on.net> wrote:

 On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 00:32:38 -0400, Jarrett Billingsley wrote:


 "Graham St Jack" <graham.stjack internode.on.net> wrote in message
 news:g7j16v$tfs$1 digitalmars.com...

 Quite a while ago there was talk of rearranging Tango and Phobos so
 that they share the same runtime, allowing BOTH libraries to be
 available in the same compiler installation.

 It looks to me as though D2 is stabilising, so now seems to be a good
 time to rationalise the two libraries in D2. I use D2 because I want
 the const stuff (and some other nice things too), but that locks me out
 of Tango and all the other libraries that use it, most notably GUI
 libraries.

 Is anything happening on this front?


 Well D2 forked around the same time as the D conference last year, at
 which that conclusion was reached, and since then W has made very little
 progress on merging the Phobos and Tango runtime libraries, instead
 focusing on new D2 features.  *shrug*


 Ok - well, I hope that will change soon.


Doesn't sound like it will, now with "SafeD" and the "shared" variable
ideas apparently on the to-do list.
There's always something big, always just beyond the horizon.

--bb
Aug 08 2008
parent reply Auria <auria.mg gmail.com> writes:
Bill Baxter Wrote:


 On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Graham St Jack
 <graham.stjack internode.on.net> wrote:

 On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 00:32:38 -0400, Jarrett Billingsley wrote:


 "Graham St Jack" <graham.stjack internode.on.net> wrote in message
 news:g7j16v$tfs$1 digitalmars.com...

 Quite a while ago there was talk of rearranging Tango and Phobos so
 that they share the same runtime, allowing BOTH libraries to be
 available in the same compiler installation.

 It looks to me as though D2 is stabilising, so now seems to be a good
 time to rationalise the two libraries in D2. I use D2 because I want
 the const stuff (and some other nice things too), but that locks me out
 of Tango and all the other libraries that use it, most notably GUI
 libraries.

 Is anything happening on this front?


 Well D2 forked around the same time as the D conference last year, at
 which that conclusion was reached, and since then W has made very little
 progress on merging the Phobos and Tango runtime libraries, instead
 focusing on new D2 features.  *shrug*


 Ok - well, I hope that will change soon.


 
 Doesn't sound like it will, now with "SafeD" and the "shared" variable
 ideas apparently on the to-do list.
 There's always something big, always just beyond the horizon.
 
 --bb


Yes, and even if i know this has been discussed to death, i'll allow myself to
add i really dislike the direction D is taking. D's homepage states it is
driven by practical experience and not academical feats. Hasn't a solid
standard library been shown over time to be absolutely necessary for any
language to become popular and highly usable? It seems like D is taking the
direction of adding lots of sugar features, and misses basic practical
experience stuff. All that sugar is totally useless if D doesn't even have a
standard library upon which everything can be built
Aug 09 2008
parent "Bent Rasmussen" <IncredibleShrinkingSphere Gmail.com> writes:
There is a stable language, it's called D1.

D2 should not be preempted by standard libraries, except experimental ones, 
built to assist the language design, so it is known to be sound. It is great 
to have two experts like Andrei and Walter work in tandem in a feedback 
loop. I'm also enthusiastic about the "leave no issue behind" mantra - 
within limits of course. It's sure to make D2 more coherent, dispite it's 
plethora of features.

It looks to me as if there are new libraries being built side-by-side with 
D2. At least foundational ones. It is hard to build higher-level ones when 
D2 is not stable; wasted work, one might say.

Also, I'm not sure what "misses basic practical experience stuff" means in 
the context of Andrei and Walter.

My newb impression at least :)

Bent


 Yes, and even if i know this has been discussed to death, i'll allow 
 myself to add i really dislike the direction D is taking. D's homepage 
 states it is driven by practical experience and not academical feats. 
 Hasn't a solid standard library been shown over time to be absolutely 
 necessary for any language to become popular and highly usable? It seems 
 like D is taking the direction of adding lots of sugar features, and 
 misses basic practical experience stuff. All that sugar is totally useless 
 if D doesn't even have a standard library upon which everything can be 
 built
Aug 23 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
== Quote from Graham St Jack (graham.stjack internode.on.net)'s article

 Quite a while ago there was talk of rearranging Tango and Phobos so that
 they share the same runtime, allowing BOTH libraries to be available in
 the same compiler installation.


This has been the case for ages via the Tango / Tangobos bundled release.


 It looks to me as though D2 is stabilising, so now seems to be a good
 time to rationalise the two libraries in D2. I use D2 because I want the
 const stuff (and some other nice things too), but that locks me out of
 Tango and all the other libraries that use it, most notably GUI libraries.
 Is anything happening on this front?


I can update the Tango runtime once I find the time, but some of the coding
approaches in the Tango user code aren't entirely compatible with D 2.0.
This was the original inspiration for the "scoped const" proposal.  In short,
it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect the Tango runtime to support D 2.0,
but my understanding is that making the user code support D 2.0 would
require a redesign in some cases, which is unlikely to occur.


Sean
Aug 09 2008
next sibling parent Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:
Sean Kelly wrote:


 == Quote from Graham St Jack (graham.stjack internode.on.net)'s article

 Quite a while ago there was talk of rearranging Tango and Phobos so that
 they share the same runtime, allowing BOTH libraries to be available in
 the same compiler installation.


 
 This has been the case for ages via the Tango / Tangobos bundled release.
 

 It looks to me as though D2 is stabilising, so now seems to be a good
 time to rationalise the two libraries in D2. I use D2 because I want the
 const stuff (and some other nice things too), but that locks me out of
 Tango and all the other libraries that use it, most notably GUI
 libraries. Is anything happening on this front?


 
 I can update the Tango runtime once I find the time, but some of the
 coding approaches in the Tango user code aren't entirely compatible with D
 2.0.
 This was the original inspiration for the "scoped const" proposal.  In
 short, it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect the Tango runtime to support
 D 2.0, but my understanding is that making the user code support D 2.0
 would require a redesign in some cases, which is unlikely to occur.


There is a bugzilla entry (or two) that hinders porting Tango as it is. One
issue was fixed with the latest release (2.018).

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango
Aug 09 2008
prev sibling parent reply Nick B <nick.barbalich gmail.com> writes:
Sean

So what is the plan to transition Tango to D2.0 ?

Is the Tango team waiting for const to be removed from D2.0, or will 
Tango continue to use D1.0 forever, or is the team waiting to see the 
final form of D2.0 before deciding what to do ?

Nick B



Sean Kelly wrote:

 == Quote from Graham St Jack (graham.stjack internode.on.net)'s article

 Quite a while ago there was talk of rearranging Tango and Phobos so that
 they share the same runtime, allowing BOTH libraries to be available in
 the same compiler installation.


 
 This has been the case for ages via the Tango / Tangobos bundled release.
 

 It looks to me as though D2 is stabilising, so now seems to be a good
 time to rationalise the two libraries in D2. I use D2 because I want the
 const stuff (and some other nice things too), but that locks me out of
 Tango and all the other libraries that use it, most notably GUI libraries.
 Is anything happening on this front?


 
 I can update the Tango runtime once I find the time, but some of the coding
 approaches in the Tango user code aren't entirely compatible with D 2.0.
 This was the original inspiration for the "scoped const" proposal.  In short,
 it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect the Tango runtime to support D 2.0,
 but my understanding is that making the user code support D 2.0 would
 require a redesign in some cases, which is unlikely to occur.
 
 
 Sean
Aug 10 2008
parent reply Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:
Nick B wrote:


 Sean
 
 So what is the plan to transition Tango to D2.0 ?
 
 Is the Tango team waiting for const to be removed from D2.0, or will
 Tango continue to use D1.0 forever, or is the team waiting to see the
 final form of D2.0 before deciding what to do ?


We don't expect const to be removed :) As it is, this must be resolved
before it is possible to properly port Tango:

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2267

1644 was fixed now, but is in our opinion the lesser solution to the
problem - we'd much rather have 1961.

2204 is still open I think.

Also as long as closures are allocated on stack, that is likely to be rather
detrimental to the performance.

Once we have a resolution on that, work on the Tango D 2.0 branch will
probably continue, and this branch will be available to all who need it. If
possible, an official release may happen shortly after the time Walter
calls D 2.0 to be stable.

One other concern is that it is almost impossible to have code that is both
D1 and D2 compatible, something which mean the mantainance of two branches,
a potentially daunting task - it would be good if the "syntactical
correctness" restriction on versioned out blocks could be removed for at
least D1/D2 identifiers.

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango
Aug 10 2008
next sibling parent reply Nick B <nick.barbalich gmail.com> writes:
Lars

Thanks for the response.  Its good to know that the Tango team is 
planning to transition to D2.0, even if you still have some major issues 
to work through, and you have to wait until Walter fixes these critical 
bugs.

cheers

Nick B


Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:

 
 We don't expect const to be removed :) As it is, this must be resolved
 before it is possible to properly port Tango:
 
 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2267
 
 1644 was fixed now, but is in our opinion the lesser solution to the
 problem - we'd much rather have 1961.
 
 2204 is still open I think.
 
 Also as long as closures are allocated on stack, that is likely to be rather
 detrimental to the performance.
 
 Once we have a resolution on that, work on the Tango D 2.0 branch will
 probably continue, and this branch will be available to all who need it. If
 possible, an official release may happen shortly after the time Walter
 calls D 2.0 to be stable.
 
 One other concern is that it is almost impossible to have code that is both
 D1 and D2 compatible, something which mean the mantainance of two branches,
 a potentially daunting task - it would be good if the "syntactical
 correctness" restriction on versioned out blocks could be removed for at
 least D1/D2 identifiers.
Aug 10 2008
parent Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Nick B wrote:

 Thanks for the response.  Its good to know that the Tango team is 
 planning to transition to D2.0, even if you still have some major issues 
 to work through, and you have to wait until Walter fixes these critical 
 bugs.


They're already fixed in the latest update.
Aug 13 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> writes:
"Lars Ivar Igesund" <larsivar igesund.net> wrote in message 
news:g7mboq$qcl$1 digitalmars.com...


 Also as long as closures are allocated on stack, that is likely to be 
 rather
 detrimental to the performance.


Heap.

That is another major blocker for me besides const.  Most of my code uses 
nested functions that are never supposed to be closures, and this "feature" 
would cause it all to unnecessarily allocate memory.
Aug 10 2008
next sibling parent reply Frank Benoit <keinfarbton googlemail.com> writes:
Jarrett Billingsley schrieb:

 "Lars Ivar Igesund" <larsivar igesund.net> wrote in message 
 news:g7mboq$qcl$1 digitalmars.com...
 

 Also as long as closures are allocated on stack, that is likely to be 
 rather
 detrimental to the performance.


 
 Heap.
 
 That is another major blocker for me besides const.  Most of my code uses 
 nested functions that are never supposed to be closures, and this "feature" 
 would cause it all to unnecessarily allocate memory. 
 
 


i second that.
It is an closure solution which was implemented too easy, imho.

1.) it breaks the semantic of an existing syntax. So existing code can 
be broken without any warning. (change in runtime behaviour)
2.) there is still no alternative syntax to get the old behaviour
3.) the closures are not really closures. E.g. const variables can 
change value. (Bug 2043)

This is definately a blocker to switch from D1 to D2.
Aug 10 2008
parent reply Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
Frank Benoit wrote:

 Jarrett Billingsley schrieb:

 "Lars Ivar Igesund" <larsivar igesund.net> wrote in message 
 news:g7mboq$qcl$1 digitalmars.com...


 Also as long as closures are allocated on stack, that is likely to be 
 rather
 detrimental to the performance.


 Heap.

 That is another major blocker for me besides const.  Most of my code 
 uses nested functions that are never supposed to be closures, and this 
 "feature" would cause it all to unnecessarily allocate memory.


 
 i second that.
 It is an closure solution which was implemented too easy, imho.
 
 1.) it breaks the semantic of an existing syntax. So existing code can 
 be broken without any warning. (change in runtime behaviour)


Yup.  Much like the change in meaning of "const," which I've admittedly 
complained about perhaps overmuch.


 2.) there is still no alternative syntax to get the old behaviour


I would prefer that the old behavior the the default and that "new &fn" 
or something similar would be used for full closures.


 3.) the closures are not really closures. E.g. const variables can 
 change value. (Bug 2043)


This one, at least, is clearly a bug.


Sean
Aug 11 2008
next sibling parent reply bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
Sean Kelly:

 I would prefer that the old behavior the the default and that "new &fn" 
 or something similar would be used for full closures.


We have already discussed why this is negative, when practically possible in D
the default has to be the "safer" version (what "safer" is can be debated).

Bye,
bearophile
Aug 11 2008
parent reply Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
== Quote from bearophile (bearophileHUGS lycos.com)'s article

 Sean Kelly:

 I would prefer that the old behavior the the default and that "new &fn"
 or something similar would be used for full closures.


 We have already discussed why this is negative, when practically possible in D
the default has to be


the "safer" version (what "safer" is can be debated).

It's just a matter of opinion, I suppose.  As D is a systems language, I don't
agree with many arguments about safety when that safety conflicts with my
ability to control what the language is doing behind the scenes.  Portability
between versions is also an issue--code that is correctly designed for D 1.0
may be unusable on D 2.0 because the default behavior for certain language
features is different, although the syntax is still completely legal.  Also,
there
isn't any way to easily grep for the use of delegates so finding such trouble
spots requires a manual code review.

Because one of Tango's core design goals was to have no hidden allocations,
this behavior is a major concern for me because it forces me to choose
between elegant algorithm design (which works fine in D 1.0) and a design
that's portable between language versions in a way I find acceptable.  I think
if/when Tango is ever released for D 2.0 necessity may dictate that it be an
unsupported release for reasons such as this.


Sean
Aug 11 2008
next sibling parent reply bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
Sean Kelly:

 It's just a matter of opinion, I suppose.  As D is a systems language, I don't
 agree with many arguments about safety when that safety conflicts with my
 ability to control what the language is doing behind the scenes.


I agree that:
- a system language has to be efficient;
- there must be a short, readable and nice way to disable heap allocation of
closures (that I think has to happen by default);
- that sometimes safety has to be put aside (that's why I have said
"practically possible": if a safe feature slows down code too much it's not
much fit for a system language, especially when compiling in release mode).
- I'm using D instead of Python because sometimes I need a modern language that
runs my programs faster (this isn't a system purpose).

Despite that, there are tons of situations where a "fast language" can help
avoid bugs with little or no performance penalty (and adding a statement to
disable the heap allocation of closures leads to no performance penalty).

Examples of other possible improvements:
foreach (i, x in array)
instead of:
foreach (i, x; array)
(But people here have explained me that despite this being better for the
programmer it's worse for the compiler, making it more complex etc, and in the
end a worse compiler is bad for the programmer too).

Or a switch() statement with a semantic safer than then C switch, or various
other things that help you decrease bug count and on average produce a
correctly running code in less time :-)



 Portability between versions is also an issue--code that is correctly designed
for D 1.0 may be unusable on D 2.0 because the default behavior for certain
language features is different, although the syntax is still completely legal.<


I have written a library that despite being surely tiny compared to Tango, is
currently already 817 KB of code, with no redundancy inside, and it's written
for D 1.x, so I understand your pain of porting things to D 2.x.

Despite this, D is a young language still, and it's developing quickly still,
so it's too much early now to impose too many backward constraints... D 1.x may
die and be forgotten, and maybe D 2.x too (Walter already says that AST macros
are for D 3.x) so every current big lib for D will probably need one or two
major rewrites. In 5 years we may have CPUs with several cores, that the
currently mostly-sequential code used in my libs and Tango will be partially
obsolete, that may require large changes in the libs and maybe in the language
too...

Bye,
bearophile
Aug 11 2008
parent "Simen Kjaeraas" <simen.kjaras gmail.com> writes:
bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> wrote:


 Examples of other possible improvements:
 foreach (i, x in array)
 instead of:
 foreach (i, x; array)
 (But people here have explained me that despite this being better for  
 the programmer it's worse for the compiler, making it more complex etc,  
 and in the end a worse compiler is bad for the programmer too).


Why not make it
   foreach (i, x of ar)
? Oh right. Because that would add keywords to the language.
Other ideas (that do not add keywords):
   foreach (i, x with ar)
   foreach (i, x for ar)
   foreach (i, x scope ar)

and of course, there's my favorite:
   foreach (i, x enum ar)

-- 
Simen
Aug 12 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Nick B <nick.barbalich gmail.com> writes:
Sean Kelly wrote:

 == Quote from bearophile (bearophileHUGS lycos.com)'s article

 Sean Kelly:

 I would prefer that the old behavior the the default and that "new &fn"
 or something similar would be used for full closures.


 We have already discussed why this is negative, when practically possible in D
the default has to be


 the "safer" version (what "safer" is can be debated).
 
 It's just a matter of opinion, I suppose.  As D is a systems language, I don't
 agree with many arguments about safety when that safety conflicts with my
 ability to control what the language is doing behind the scenes.  Portability
 between versions is also an issue--code that is correctly designed for D 1.0
 may be unusable on D 2.0 because the default behavior for certain language
 features is different, although the syntax is still completely legal.  Also,
there
 isn't any way to easily grep for the use of delegates so finding such trouble
 spots requires a manual code review.
 
 Because one of Tango's core design goals was to have no hidden allocations,
 this behavior is a major concern for me because it forces me to choose
 between elegant algorithm design (which works fine in D 1.0) and a design
 that's portable between language versions in a way I find acceptable.  I think
 if/when Tango is ever released for D 2.0 necessity may dictate that it be an
 unsupported release for reasons such as this.
 
 
 Sean


Sean

Can you explain what you mean by a "unsupported release" ?

Do you mean that all bugs will not fixed or only a certain sub-set of 
bugs ?

Nick B
Aug 12 2008
next sibling parent reply Alexander Panek <alexander.panek brainsware.org> writes:
Nick B wrote:
  > Can you explain what you mean by a "unsupported release" ?

 
 Do you mean that all bugs will not fixed or only a certain sub-set of 
 bugs ?


I suppose he means that there's no guarantee that bugs are fixed. They 
may or may not be.
Aug 12 2008
parent Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:
Alexander Panek wrote:


 Nick B wrote:
   > Can you explain what you mean by a "unsupported release" ?

 
 Do you mean that all bugs will not fixed or only a certain sub-set of
 bugs ?


 
 I suppose he means that there's no guarantee that bugs are fixed. They
 may or may not be.


Well, it would rather be more that we cannot guarantee that things operates
as intended as long as there is no way to specify what we need to specify,
or that the D spec don't have the necessary guarantees for the operation of
the language.

Potentially unbounded running time due to unexpected allocations would be
one such thing.

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango
Aug 12 2008
prev sibling parent Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
Nick B wrote:

 Sean Kelly wrote:

 == Quote from bearophile (bearophileHUGS lycos.com)'s article

 Sean Kelly:

 I would prefer that the old behavior the the default and that "new &fn"
 or something similar would be used for full closures.


 We have already discussed why this is negative, when practically 
 possible in D the default has to be


 the "safer" version (what "safer" is can be debated).

 It's just a matter of opinion, I suppose.  As D is a systems language, 
 I don't
 agree with many arguments about safety when that safety conflicts with my
 ability to control what the language is doing behind the scenes.  
 Portability
 between versions is also an issue--code that is correctly designed for 
 D 1.0
 may be unusable on D 2.0 because the default behavior for certain 
 language
 features is different, although the syntax is still completely legal.  
 Also, there
 isn't any way to easily grep for the use of delegates so finding such 
 trouble
 spots requires a manual code review.

 Because one of Tango's core design goals was to have no hidden 
 allocations,
 this behavior is a major concern for me because it forces me to choose
 between elegant algorithm design (which works fine in D 1.0) and a design
 that's portable between language versions in a way I find acceptable.  
 I think
 if/when Tango is ever released for D 2.0 necessity may dictate that it 
 be an
 unsupported release for reasons such as this.


 
 Can you explain what you mean by a "unsupported release" ?


For example, Tango currently provides guarantees about hidden memory 
allocations -- ie. it doesn't perform any, really.  But with the new 
closure rules in D2 we can't provide the same guarantee without a 
redesign.  So I'd consider Tango on D2 to be unsupported because it 
won't be able to provide the guarantees we provide on D1 without a 
rewrite, which we aren't planning on doing.


 Do you mean that all bugs will not fixed or only a certain sub-set of 
 bugs ?


See above.  I wouldn't consider these bugs per se, just documented behavior.


Sean
Aug 14 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent reply dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> writes:
What about, at least initially, releasing a subset of Tango for D2 and gradually
porting more as issues are fixed?  For example, just for now, just release
whatever subset of Tango is high-level enough to run on top of the D2 Phobos
runtime and isn't plagued too severely by const issues, even if it doesn't mesh
perfectly, i.e. requires some casting, etc. on the part of client code.  I'm not
really sure, but I would guess that this would leave a reasonably large subset
with plenty of useful things.

To be honest, I'm not sure how feasible this is, but I thought I would throw it
out there as a suggestion.  Tango is a huge library with tons of nice stuff, and
it seems like a shame that D2 users can't use any of it if only parts of it are
broken.
Aug 12 2008
parent reply Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:
dsimcha wrote:


 What about, at least initially, releasing a subset of Tango for D2 and
 gradually
 porting more as issues are fixed?  For example, just for now, just release
 whatever subset of Tango is high-level enough to run on top of the D2
 Phobos runtime and isn't plagued too severely by const issues, even if it
 doesn't mesh
 perfectly, i.e. requires some casting, etc. on the part of client code. 


There isn't really a subset of Tango that can run on top of any Phobos
runtime. The Tango runtime probably works fine with D2 without any major
changes, it is the user library that is problematic. The work on the
porting has begun in a branch in Tango's svn repository, but cannot be
continued properly until certain issues are fixed.


 I'm not really sure, but I would guess that this would leave a reasonably
 large subset with plenty of useful things.
 
 To be honest, I'm not sure how feasible this is, but I thought I would
 throw it
 out there as a suggestion.  Tango is a huge library with tons of nice
 stuff, and it seems like a shame that D2 users can't use any of it if only
 parts of it are broken.


It is typically the behaviour of certain core parts (text manipulation, io)
that doesn't work properly, and so most of the other parts of Tango won't
work either. Right now it isn't really compilable either if I understand
correctly. But we got people on it! :)

Really, it would be swell if Tango could work with D2, but currently D2 is
not usable for a library like Tango.

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango
Aug 12 2008
next sibling parent reply Nick B <nick.barbalich gmail.com> writes:
Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:

 dsimcha wrote:
 

 What about, at least initially, releasing a subset of Tango for D2 and
 gradually
 porting more as issues are fixed?  For example, just for now, just release
 whatever subset of Tango is high-level enough to run on top of the D2
 Phobos runtime and isn't plagued too severely by const issues, even if it
 doesn't mesh
 perfectly, i.e. requires some casting, etc. on the part of client code. 


 
 There isn't really a subset of Tango that can run on top of any Phobos
 runtime. The Tango runtime probably works fine with D2 without any major
 changes, it is the user library that is problematic. The work on the
 porting has begun in a branch in Tango's svn repository, but cannot be
 continued properly until certain issues are fixed.
 

 I'm not really sure, but I would guess that this would leave a reasonably
 large subset with plenty of useful things.

 To be honest, I'm not sure how feasible this is, but I thought I would
 throw it
 out there as a suggestion.  Tango is a huge library with tons of nice
 stuff, and it seems like a shame that D2 users can't use any of it if only
 parts of it are broken.


 
 It is typically the behaviour of certain core parts (text manipulation, io)
 that doesn't work properly, and so most of the other parts of Tango won't
 work either. Right now it isn't really compilable either if I understand
 correctly. But we got people on it! :)
 
 Really, it would be swell if Tango could work with D2, but currently D2 is
 not usable for a library like Tango.
 


So what is the plan to resolve these creative differences ?

When is the Tango team and Walter going to get in the same room to 
thrash though these differences, because if these issues are not 
resolved, then the split will get wider, and wider.  Finally, both 
communities will go their separate ways, and the community (both D and 
Tango) will burn and die.

Nick B
Aug 13 2008
next sibling parent reply Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:
Nick B wrote:


 Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:

 dsimcha wrote:
 

 What about, at least initially, releasing a subset of Tango for D2 and
 gradually
 porting more as issues are fixed?  For example, just for now, just
 release whatever subset of Tango is high-level enough to run on top of
 the D2 Phobos runtime and isn't plagued too severely by const issues,
 even if it doesn't mesh
 perfectly, i.e. requires some casting, etc. on the part of client code.


 
 There isn't really a subset of Tango that can run on top of any Phobos
 runtime. The Tango runtime probably works fine with D2 without any major
 changes, it is the user library that is problematic. The work on the
 porting has begun in a branch in Tango's svn repository, but cannot be
 continued properly until certain issues are fixed.
 

 I'm not really sure, but I would guess that this would leave a
 reasonably large subset with plenty of useful things.

 To be honest, I'm not sure how feasible this is, but I thought I would
 throw it
 out there as a suggestion.  Tango is a huge library with tons of nice
 stuff, and it seems like a shame that D2 users can't use any of it if
 only parts of it are broken.


 
 It is typically the behaviour of certain core parts (text manipulation,
 io) that doesn't work properly, and so most of the other parts of Tango
 won't work either. Right now it isn't really compilable either if I
 understand correctly. But we got people on it! :)
 
 Really, it would be swell if Tango could work with D2, but currently D2
 is not usable for a library like Tango.
 


 So what is the plan to resolve these creative differences ?


Bugzilla entries exists, it is up to Walter to decide the way forward.

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango
Aug 13 2008
parent reply "Denis Koroskin" <2korden gmail.com> writes:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:25:29 +0400, Lars Ivar Igesund  
<larsivar igesund.net> wrote:


 Nick B wrote:


 Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:

 dsimcha wrote:


 What about, at least initially, releasing a subset of Tango for D2 and
 gradually
 porting more as issues are fixed?  For example, just for now, just
 release whatever subset of Tango is high-level enough to run on top of
 the D2 Phobos runtime and isn't plagued too severely by const issues,
 even if it doesn't mesh
 perfectly, i.e. requires some casting, etc. on the part of client  
 code.


 There isn't really a subset of Tango that can run on top of any Phobos
 runtime. The Tango runtime probably works fine with D2 without any  
 major
 changes, it is the user library that is problematic. The work on the
 porting has begun in a branch in Tango's svn repository, but cannot be
 continued properly until certain issues are fixed.


 I'm not really sure, but I would guess that this would leave a
 reasonably large subset with plenty of useful things.

 To be honest, I'm not sure how feasible this is, but I thought I would
 throw it
 out there as a suggestion.  Tango is a huge library with tons of nice
 stuff, and it seems like a shame that D2 users can't use any of it if
 only parts of it are broken.


 It is typically the behaviour of certain core parts (text manipulation,
 io) that doesn't work properly, and so most of the other parts of Tango
 won't work either. Right now it isn't really compilable either if I
 understand correctly. But we got people on it! :)

 Really, it would be swell if Tango could work with D2, but currently D2
 is not usable for a library like Tango.


 So what is the plan to resolve these creative differences ?


 Bugzilla entries exists, it is up to Walter to decide the way forward.


The biggest issue is diffent Tango and Phobos runtime implementation, I  
think.
I didn't find any bugzilla reports on this subject, though. :(
Aug 13 2008
next sibling parent reply Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:
Denis Koroskin wrote:


 On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:25:29 +0400, Lars Ivar Igesund
 <larsivar igesund.net> wrote:
 

 Nick B wrote:


 Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:

 dsimcha wrote:


 What about, at least initially, releasing a subset of Tango for D2 and
 gradually
 porting more as issues are fixed?  For example, just for now, just
 release whatever subset of Tango is high-level enough to run on top of
 the D2 Phobos runtime and isn't plagued too severely by const issues,
 even if it doesn't mesh
 perfectly, i.e. requires some casting, etc. on the part of client
 code.


 There isn't really a subset of Tango that can run on top of any Phobos
 runtime. The Tango runtime probably works fine with D2 without any
 major
 changes, it is the user library that is problematic. The work on the
 porting has begun in a branch in Tango's svn repository, but cannot be
 continued properly until certain issues are fixed.


 I'm not really sure, but I would guess that this would leave a
 reasonably large subset with plenty of useful things.

 To be honest, I'm not sure how feasible this is, but I thought I would
 throw it
 out there as a suggestion.  Tango is a huge library with tons of nice
 stuff, and it seems like a shame that D2 users can't use any of it if
 only parts of it are broken.


 It is typically the behaviour of certain core parts (text manipulation,
 io) that doesn't work properly, and so most of the other parts of Tango
 won't work either. Right now it isn't really compilable either if I
 understand correctly. But we got people on it! :)

 Really, it would be swell if Tango could work with D2, but currently D2
 is not usable for a library like Tango.


 So what is the plan to resolve these creative differences ?


 Bugzilla entries exists, it is up to Walter to decide the way forward.


 
 The biggest issue is diffent Tango and Phobos runtime implementation, I
 think.
 I didn't find any bugzilla reports on this subject, though. :(


Oh, I actually misinterpreted Nick's meaning. Whether it is an issue or not,
depends on the POV. Doing anything with it, is in Walter's ballpark.

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango
Aug 13 2008
parent Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:

 The biggest issue is diffent Tango and Phobos runtime implementation, I
 think.
 I didn't find any bugzilla reports on this subject, though. :(


 
 Oh, I actually misinterpreted Nick's meaning. Whether it is an issue or not,
 depends on the POV. Doing anything with it, is in Walter's ballpark.


Please see my other post here on this topic.
Aug 13 2008
prev sibling parent reply Moritz Warning <moritzwarning web.de> writes:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:29:45 +0400, Denis Koroskin wrote:



 The biggest issue is diffent Tango and Phobos runtime implementation, I
 think.
 I didn't find any bugzilla reports on this subject, though. :(


I haven't taken a look at those runtime implementation differences,
but I wonder why there are no activities to solve this issue.

It makes it look like the participants are playing the golden throne 
game...
Aug 13 2008
parent reply Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
== Quote from Moritz Warning (moritzwarning web.de)'s article

 On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:29:45 +0400, Denis Koroskin wrote:

 The biggest issue is diffent Tango and Phobos runtime implementation, I
 think.
 I didn't find any bugzilla reports on this subject, though. :(


 I haven't taken a look at those runtime implementation differences,
 but I wonder why there are no activities to solve this issue.
 It makes it look like the participants are playing the golden throne
 game...


Unfortunately, for this to be resolved it requires cooperation from both
sides.  It takes two to Tango, as they say (sorry, bad joke).


Sean
Aug 13 2008
next sibling parent reply Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight gmail.com> writes:
Sean Kelly Wrote:


 == Quote from Moritz Warning (moritzwarning web.de)'s article

 On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:29:45 +0400, Denis Koroskin wrote:

 The biggest issue is diffent Tango and Phobos runtime implementation, I
 think.
 I didn't find any bugzilla reports on this subject, though. :(


 I haven't taken a look at those runtime implementation differences,
 but I wonder why there are no activities to solve this issue.
 It makes it look like the participants are playing the golden throne
 game...


 
 Unfortunately, for this to be resolved it requires cooperation from both
 sides.  It takes two to Tango, as they say (sorry, bad joke).
 
 
 Sean


I see the D community heading for a split. One side will be D1 (hopefully a D
1.5) +tango, and the other side will be D2+phobos.  I don't think of this as a
bad thing nessescarily, just two different directions.
Aug 13 2008
next sibling parent reply Don <nospam nospam.com.au> writes:
Robert Fraser wrote:

 Sean Kelly Wrote:
 

 == Quote from Moritz Warning (moritzwarning web.de)'s article

 On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:29:45 +0400, Denis Koroskin wrote:

 The biggest issue is diffent Tango and Phobos runtime implementation, I
 think.
 I didn't find any bugzilla reports on this subject, though. :(


 I haven't taken a look at those runtime implementation differences,
 but I wonder why there are no activities to solve this issue.
 It makes it look like the participants are playing the golden throne
 game...


 Unfortunately, for this to be resolved it requires cooperation from both
 sides.  It takes two to Tango, as they say (sorry, bad joke).


 Sean


 
 I see the D community heading for a split. One side will be D1 (hopefully a D
1.5) +tango, and the other side will be D2+phobos.  I don't think of this as a
bad thing nessescarily, just two different directions.


I desperately hope not. I'm strongly active in both camps.
I'm heartily sick of this situation. std.math and tango.math.Math/ 
tango.math.IEEE are now a cut and paste of each other, barring a very 
small number of lines. I want a single code base, but I'm not sure what 
more I can do.
Aug 13 2008
next sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Don wrote:

 std.math and tango.math.Math/ 
 tango.math.IEEE are now a cut and paste of each other, barring a very 
 small number of lines. I want a single code base, but I'm not sure what 
 more I can do.


And I appreciate your efforts here and can't thank you enough.
Aug 13 2008
prev sibling parent Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
Don wrote:

 Robert Fraser wrote:

 Sean Kelly Wrote:


 == Quote from Moritz Warning (moritzwarning web.de)'s article

 On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:29:45 +0400, Denis Koroskin wrote:

 The biggest issue is diffent Tango and Phobos runtime 
 implementation, I
 think.
 I didn't find any bugzilla reports on this subject, though. :(


 I haven't taken a look at those runtime implementation differences,
 but I wonder why there are no activities to solve this issue.
 It makes it look like the participants are playing the golden throne
 game...


 Unfortunately, for this to be resolved it requires cooperation from both
 sides.  It takes two to Tango, as they say (sorry, bad joke).


 I see the D community heading for a split. One side will be D1 
 (hopefully a D 1.5) +tango, and the other side will be D2+phobos.  I 
 don't think of this as a bad thing nessescarily, just two different 
 directions.


 
 I desperately hope not. I'm strongly active in both camps.
 I'm heartily sick of this situation. std.math and tango.math.Math/ 
 tango.math.IEEE are now a cut and paste of each other, barring a very 
 small number of lines. I want a single code base, but I'm not sure what 
 more I can do.


I don't particularly like the status quo either, but as the maintainer 
of the runtime there's little I can do for Phobos.  It's already been 
established that the Phobos user code will run on the Tango runtime with 
basically no modifications (the reverse isn't true), and D2 support 
simply requires time I don't have at the moment.  I'm not sure what else 
to do here.


Sean
Aug 14 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Benji Smith <dlanguage benjismith.net> writes:
Robert Fraser wrote:

 I see the D community heading for a split. One side will be D1 (hopefully a D
1.5) +tango, and the other side will be D2+phobos.  I don't think of this as a
bad thing nessescarily, just two different directions.


That might be okay in an open source project, where the community can 
just fork the project and go their separate ways. But my assumption is 
that D1 will eventually be end-of-life'd, maybe when D3 eventually 
arrives. What happens to the D1 people then? Especially given the 
incompatibilities between D1 and D2. They won't be able to easily port 
their code, and my assumption is that they'll just be screwed.

--benji
Aug 13 2008
parent reply Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight gmail.com> writes:
Benji Smith Wrote:


 Robert Fraser wrote:

 I see the D community heading for a split. One side will be D1 (hopefully a D
1.5) +tango, and the other side will be D2+phobos.  I don't think of this as a
bad thing nessescarily, just two different directions.


 
 That might be okay in an open source project, where the community can 
 just fork the project and go their separate ways. But my assumption is 
 that D1 will eventually be end-of-life'd, maybe when D3 eventually 
 arrives. What happens to the D1 people then? Especially given the 
 incompatibilities between D1 and D2. They won't be able to easily port 
 their code, and my assumption is that they'll just be screwed.
 
 --benji


D1 is definitely not dead. LLVMDC only supports D1 and is soon to come
out. Dil... I'm not sure how alive it is, but that's D1-only, too. Most D 
projects/libraries right now are D1-only.
Aug 13 2008
next sibling parent reply Benji Smith <dlanguage benjismith.net> writes:
Robert Fraser wrote:

 Benji Smith Wrote:
 

 Robert Fraser wrote:

 I see the D community heading for a split. One side will be D1 (hopefully a D
1.5) +tango, and the other side will be D2+phobos.  I don't think of this as a
bad thing nessescarily, just two different directions.


 That might be okay in an open source project, where the community can 
 just fork the project and go their separate ways. But my assumption is 
 that D1 will eventually be end-of-life'd, maybe when D3 eventually 
 arrives. What happens to the D1 people then? Especially given the 
 incompatibilities between D1 and D2. They won't be able to easily port 
 their code, and my assumption is that they'll just be screwed.

 --benji


 
 D1 is definitely not dead. LLVMDC only supports D1 and is soon to come
 out. Dil... I'm not sure how alive it is, but that's D1-only, too. Most D 
 projects/libraries right now are D1-only.


Sure, that's the case now.

But imagine yourself back in 1997, supporting Java 1.0 but (for whatever 
reason) not wanting to jump into Java 1.1.

At the time, you wouldn't have had any problem with compilers, 
libraries, or JVMs.

But eventually, you'd be screwed. Nobody can develop anything in Java 
1.0 anymore. It's just not possible.

My assumption is that D1 will eventually be as anachronistic as Java 
1.0, and those who aren't willing to move their code to D2 will have to 
pick up their toys and go home.

--benji
Aug 13 2008
next sibling parent Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:
Benji Smith wrote:


 Robert Fraser wrote:

 Benji Smith Wrote:
 

 Robert Fraser wrote:

 I see the D community heading for a split. One side will be D1
 (hopefully a D 1.5) +tango, and the other side will be D2+phobos.  I
 don't think of this as a bad thing nessescarily, just two different
 directions.


 That might be okay in an open source project, where the community can
 just fork the project and go their separate ways. But my assumption is
 that D1 will eventually be end-of-life'd, maybe when D3 eventually
 arrives. What happens to the D1 people then? Especially given the
 incompatibilities between D1 and D2. They won't be able to easily port
 their code, and my assumption is that they'll just be screwed.

 --benji


 
 D1 is definitely not dead. LLVMDC only supports D1 and is soon to come
 out. Dil... I'm not sure how alive it is, but that's D1-only, too. Most D
 projects/libraries right now are D1-only.


 
 Sure, that's the case now.
 
 But imagine yourself back in 1997, supporting Java 1.0 but (for whatever
 reason) not wanting to jump into Java 1.1.
 
 At the time, you wouldn't have had any problem with compilers,
 libraries, or JVMs.
 
 But eventually, you'd be screwed. Nobody can develop anything in Java
 1.0 anymore. It's just not possible.
 
 My assumption is that D1 will eventually be as anachronistic as Java
 1.0, and those who aren't willing to move their code to D2 will have to
 pick up their toys and go home.
 
 --benji


You probably have a point, but Java 1.0 was really dead in the water - I
started programming in Java in 1998 back at the university, using 1.1, and
I don't think I came over a single 1.0 reference.

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango
Aug 14 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Benji Smith wrote:

 Robert Fraser wrote:

 D1 is definitely not dead. LLVMDC only supports D1 and is soon to come
 out. Dil... I'm not sure how alive it is, but that's D1-only, too. 
 Most D projects/libraries right now are D1-only.


 
 Sure, that's the case now.
 
 But imagine yourself back in 1997, supporting Java 1.0 but (for whatever 
 reason) not wanting to jump into Java 1.1.


When you ship a Java application, you are reliant on it running on the 
customer's Java VM that is not under your control. If they don't have a 
Java 1.1 VM, your application doesn't work.

The situation is different with a native compiler, because the customer 
doesn't need anything beyond the target machine/OS to run the 
application. Furthermore, you can continue to build those executables, 
regardless of future changes to the compiler, by simply saving a copy of 
the needed compiler.

Even if you didn't save a copy of the compiler, all the various shipped 
versions of dmd are freely available on the Digital Mars site.
Aug 14 2008
parent Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeiros+spam com.gmail> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 Benji Smith wrote:

 Robert Fraser wrote:

 D1 is definitely not dead. LLVMDC only supports D1 and is soon to come
 out. Dil... I'm not sure how alive it is, but that's D1-only, too. 
 Most D projects/libraries right now are D1-only.


 Sure, that's the case now.

 But imagine yourself back in 1997, supporting Java 1.0 but (for 
 whatever reason) not wanting to jump into Java 1.1.


 
 When you ship a Java application, you are reliant on it running on the 
 customer's Java VM that is not under your control. If they don't have a 
 Java 1.1 VM, your application doesn't work.
 
 The situation is different with a native compiler, because the customer 
 doesn't need anything beyond the target machine/OS to run the 
 application. Furthermore, you can continue to build those executables, 
 regardless of future changes to the compiler, by simply saving a copy of 
 the needed compiler.
 
 Even if you didn't save a copy of the compiler, all the various shipped 
 versions of dmd are freely available on the Digital Mars site.


The issue is not just about outdated VMs, or outdated compilers. If you 
are developing an application that uses third-party libraries (which is 
very common in web-apps, and other big enterprise software), and those 
libraries require a newer version of your language, you will feel quite 
compelled to upgrade to the newer version in order to use that 
libraries. And eventually, if most libraries only support version X of 
the language, almost all software ends up using version X, and then 
version X-1 might become effectively dead (and that's something that 
could happen to D1).

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - Software Developer, MSc. in CS/E graduate
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D
Aug 15 2008
prev sibling parent "Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> writes:
"Benji Smith" <dlanguage benjismith.net> wrote in message 
news:g7vlkg$2gmg$1 digitalmars.com...

 Robert Fraser wrote:

 Benji Smith Wrote:


 Robert Fraser wrote:

 I see the D community heading for a split. One side will be D1 
 (hopefully a D 1.5) +tango, and the other side will be D2+phobos.  I 
 don't think of this as a bad thing nessescarily, just two different 
 directions.


 That might be okay in an open source project, where the community can 
 just fork the project and go their separate ways. But my assumption is 
 that D1 will eventually be end-of-life'd, maybe when D3 eventually 
 arrives. What happens to the D1 people then? Especially given the 
 incompatibilities between D1 and D2. They won't be able to easily port 
 their code, and my assumption is that they'll just be screwed.

 --benji


 D1 is definitely not dead. LLVMDC only supports D1 and is soon to come
 out. Dil... I'm not sure how alive it is, but that's D1-only, too. Most D 
 projects/libraries right now are D1-only.


 Sure, that's the case now.

 But imagine yourself back in 1997, supporting Java 1.0 but (for whatever 
 reason) not wanting to jump into Java 1.1.

 At the time, you wouldn't have had any problem with compilers, libraries, 
 or JVMs.

 But eventually, you'd be screwed. Nobody can develop anything in Java 1.0 
 anymore. It's just not possible.

 My assumption is that D1 will eventually be as anachronistic as Java 1.0, 
 and those who aren't willing to move their code to D2 will have to pick up 
 their toys and go home.

 --benji


People are still using C89.  *shrug*
Aug 14 2008
prev sibling parent reply bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
Robert Fraser:

 LLVMDC only supports D1 and is soon to come out.


D2 is good, I can see only one or two problems in it, so making LLVMDC support
D 2.x too looks important to me.

What are the issues left in LLVMDC? I see the LLVM backend as the most (the
only, maybe) important for the future of D (more important than the closed and
not community-hackable backend of DMD, and the complex GCC), are such issues
important? If they aren't important then it may be better for Walter to change
the specs of D 2.x to made D 2.x fit for LLMV. Because D is meant as a language
easy to compile too, but if has some features that can't be implemented well on
free backends like the ones of GCC and LLMV then such features look like fit to
be removed/modified, otherwise no fully complaint alternative implementations
of D may appear, and this sounds silly.

Two persons have already answered me regarding the idea of LLVM becoming the
reference backend for the D language (that Walter too switches to work on),
that most people can improve and tune, but I haven't understood the problems
they have explained to me.

Bye,
bearophile
Aug 13 2008
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
bearophile wrote:

 Robert Fraser:

 LLVMDC only supports D1 and is soon to come out.


 
 D2 is good, I can see only one or two problems in it, so making
 LLVMDC support D 2.x too looks important to me.


I have no idea what would prevent a backend that works with D1 from 
working with D2.
Aug 13 2008
parent reply Tomas Lindquist Olsen <tomas famolsen.dk> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 bearophile wrote:

 Robert Fraser:

 LLVMDC only supports D1 and is soon to come out.


 D2 is good, I can see only one or two problems in it, so making
 LLVMDC support D 2.x too looks important to me.


 
 I have no idea what would prevent a backend that works with D1 from 
 working with D2.


Except for all our changes to the dmd frontend sources, I don't see any problem
with updating 
LLVMDC to D2.0.

Of course it would be a bit of work to implement the new expression/statement
variations, but 
I'd assume nothing _too_ major.

However the plan right now is to make a fully working D1.0 compiler, until
that's done no work 
will go into future D2.0 support!

Tomas
Aug 13 2008
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:

 Except for all our changes to the dmd frontend sources, I don't see any 
 problem with updating LLVMDC to D2.0.


I suppose this process can be aided if you're willing to send me some 
diffs so I can incorporate the changes.
Aug 13 2008
parent reply Tomas Lindquist Olsen <tomas famolsen.dk> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 I suppose this process can be aided if you're willing to send me some 
 diffs so I can incorporate the changes.


I'll most likely hold you up on that ;)

...

Most of the changes we've made are to fix portability/platform related issues.
For example, 
extensive use of printf formatting flags unsupported by ming32, assumptions
that target is 
32bit, etc.

These would be really nice to get fixed in your tree as they make up the
majority of the 
changes, and it would make merging in your DMD updates quite a bit easier. Also
it would 
probably help other people use the frontend for different things in the future.

We're still at 1.033 in LLVMDC, but once I find the time to merge in 1.034 I'll
take a look at 
this and see if I can conjure up some patches for review.

Tomas
Aug 13 2008
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:

 Most of the changes we've made are to fix portability/platform related 
 issues. For example, extensive use of printf formatting flags 
 unsupported by ming32,


Umm, those are standard C flags? Hasn't ming32 been updated yet?


 assumptions that target is 32bit, etc.
 
 These would be really nice to get fixed in your tree as they make up the 
 majority of the changes, and it would make merging in your DMD updates 
 quite a bit easier. Also it would probably help other people use the 
 frontend for different things in the future.


Yes, I agree. Absolutely!



 We're still at 1.033 in LLVMDC, but once I find the time to merge in 
 1.034 I'll take a look at this and see if I can conjure up some patches 
 for review.


I'm looking forward to it.
Aug 13 2008
next sibling parent Tomas Lindquist Olsen <tomas famolsen.dk> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:

 We're still at 1.033 in LLVMDC, but once I find the time to merge in 
 1.034 I'll take a look at this and see if I can conjure up some 
 patches for review.


 
 I'm looking forward to it.


I just had a tiny look, and it looks like you forgot the file(s) with the
implementations for 
all the new arrayOp stuff like:

Expression::buildArrayIdent
Expression::buildArrayLoop
Expression::arrayOp

I'm guessing this is not intentional... Could you mail this to me? This address
should work.

Tomas
Aug 13 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent reply =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:


 Most of the changes we've made are to fix portability/platform related 
 issues. For example, extensive use of printf formatting flags 
 unsupported by ming32,


 
 Umm, those are standard C flags? Hasn't ming32 been updated yet?
 

 assumptions that target is 32bit, etc.

 These would be really nice to get fixed in your tree as they make up 
 the majority of the changes, and it would make merging in your DMD 
 updates quite a bit easier. Also it would probably help other people 
 use the frontend for different things in the future.


 
 Yes, I agree. Absolutely!


GDC has a couple of those portability changes too, that might be
useful to merge back into DMD where that hasn't happened already...


It also seems that Tango is having some problems with GDC, because
it doesn't follow the DMD specification (sometimes for portability)

Like:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=670
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1066
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2191

Might be something worthwhile looking into, after the runtime issues
between Phobos and Tango (i.e. the differences between DMD and GDC)

--anders
Aug 14 2008
parent Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:
Anders F Björklund wrote:


 Walter Bright wrote:
 

 Most of the changes we've made are to fix portability/platform related
 issues. For example, extensive use of printf formatting flags
 unsupported by ming32,


 
 Umm, those are standard C flags? Hasn't ming32 been updated yet?
 

 assumptions that target is 32bit, etc.

 These would be really nice to get fixed in your tree as they make up
 the majority of the changes, and it would make merging in your DMD
 updates quite a bit easier. Also it would probably help other people
 use the frontend for different things in the future.


 
 Yes, I agree. Absolutely!


 
 GDC has a couple of those portability changes too, that might be
 useful to merge back into DMD where that hasn't happened already...
 
 
 It also seems that Tango is having some problems with GDC, because
 it doesn't follow the DMD specification (sometimes for portability)
 
 Like:
 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=670
 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1066
 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2191
 
 Might be something worthwhile looking into, after the runtime issues
 between Phobos and Tango (i.e. the differences between DMD and GDC)


This is actually an intended topic at the Tango conference, if many
enough/right persons show up :)

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango
Aug 14 2008
prev sibling parent Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeiros+spam com.gmail> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:

 Most of the changes we've made are to fix portability/platform related 
 issues. For example, extensive use of printf formatting flags 
 unsupported by ming32,


 
 Umm, those are standard C flags? Hasn't ming32 been updated yet?
 

 assumptions that target is 32bit, etc.

 These would be really nice to get fixed in your tree as they make up 
 the majority of the changes, and it would make merging in your DMD 
 updates quite a bit easier. Also it would probably help other people 
 use the frontend for different things in the future.


 
 Yes, I agree. Absolutely!
 
 

 We're still at 1.033 in LLVMDC, but once I find the time to merge in 
 1.034 I'll take a look at this and see if I can conjure up some 
 patches for review.


 
 I'm looking forward to it.


Walter, thank you for agreeing with those changes!
As the toolset of a language is highly important to its productivity, so 
does that mean that the more help the community gets in reusing and 
improving each others tools, the better D will be (especially since we 
don't have the backing of a large corporation, and most of D's 
contributers are volunteers/hobbyists). And even more important if that 
tool is the compiler (which is already being used in several projects).

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - Software Developer, MSc. in CS/E graduate
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D
Aug 15 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Paul D. Anderson <paul.d.removethis.anderson comcast.andthis.net> writes:
Robert Fraser Wrote:


 I see the D community heading for a split. One side will be D1 (hopefully a D
1.5) +tango, and the other side will be D2+phobos.  I don't think of this as a
bad thing nessescarily, just two different directions.


First, let me say that I have the highest regard, both personally and
professionally, for Walter (and Andre and Bartosz and the others who are
working on D 2.0) and also for the Tango development team. Both groups have a
lot of talent and have worked hard to give us (at no cost!) a great language
and a great library. 

The Tango developers have done important and valuable work, providing sturdy,
efficient and rigorous implementations of many common software components. They
have not only provided the Tango library, but they've also wrung out the
language and pushed its capabilities to give us all a better picture of what is
possible. (I'd love to see what they could do with the new features in D 2.0.) 

And they have been careful not to step on Walter's toes while they do this.
They discussed the problem with Walter at the first D Language Conference and
agreed on a solution: a common runtime module. They have narrowed the
incompatibilities between phobos and tango to a minimal set and are waiting for
Walter to meet them there. To live up to his part of the bargain, to put it
bluntly. A year later he still hasn't done so.

But Walter drives development his own way. Walter himself has said that the
only difference between himself (and D) and a lot of other replacements for
C/C++ is that he's stayed with it longer than they have. And so Walter will
listen and respond to criticism, new concepts, alternative implementations and
frantic pleas, but, at the end of the day, he will work toward what he sees as
the best solution to the most pressing problems. This is mostly a good thing --
Walter has a long-term vision for the D programming language and he is
determined to see it through. Of course, this also has a downside. Work that
doesn't advance the main line that he has mapped out doesn't get his attention,
or his time. It's not that he's unwilling, but he's doing a lot of work on
developing what he sees as more fundamental things.

So I don't think it is likely that Walter will delay or disturb his current
effort to get D 2.0 pushed out the door. And he's made it clear that he not
interested in going back to "fix" D 1.0. But what I would really like to see
(and I don't think it's asking too much) is a clear statement from Walter that
he will indeed make the changes the Tango developers are asking for at some
future date. I don't think he even needs to commit himself to a specific date,
just a reference point -- when D 2.0 is final, or when the functional
programming stuff is in place, or whenever. I think all that we really NEED at
this point is assurance that the two groups are not working at cross purposes.

If this has already happened, if there is some agreement in place that I just
don't know about, then I apologize for this rant. But it seems like little
enough to ask.

Paul
Aug 13 2008
next sibling parent "Koroskin Denis" <2korden gmail.com> writes:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 02:05:37 +0400, Paul D. Anderson  
<paul.d.removethis.anderson comcast.andthis.net> wrote:


 Robert Fraser Wrote:


 I see the D community heading for a split. One side will be D1  
 (hopefully a D 1.5) +tango, and the other side will be D2+phobos.  I  
 don't think of this as a bad thing nessescarily, just two different  
 directions.


 First, let me say that I have the highest regard, both personally and  
 professionally, for Walter (and Andre and Bartosz and the others who are  
 working on D 2.0) and also for the Tango development team. Both groups  
 have a lot of talent and have worked hard to give us (at no cost!) a  
 great language and a great library.

 The Tango developers have done important and valuable work, providing  
 sturdy, efficient and rigorous implementations of many common software  
 components. They have not only provided the Tango library, but they've  
 also wrung out the language and pushed its capabilities to give us all a  
 better picture of what is possible. (I'd love to see what they could do  
 with the new features in D 2.0.)

 And they have been careful not to step on Walter's toes while they do  
 this. They discussed the problem with Walter at the first D Language  
 Conference and agreed on a solution: a common runtime module. They have  
 narrowed the incompatibilities between phobos and tango to a minimal set  
 and are waiting for Walter to meet them there. To live up to his part of  
 the bargain, to put it bluntly. A year later he still hasn't done so.

 But Walter drives development his own way. Walter himself has said that  
 the only difference between himself (and D) and a lot of other  
 replacements for C/C++ is that he's stayed with it longer than they  
 have. And so Walter will listen and respond to criticism, new concepts,  
 alternative implementations and frantic pleas, but, at the end of the  
 day, he will work toward what he sees as the best solution to the most  
 pressing problems. This is mostly a good thing -- Walter has a long-term  
 vision for the D programming language and he is determined to see it  
 through. Of course, this also has a downside. Work that doesn't advance  
 the main line that he has mapped out doesn't get his attention, or his  
 time. It's not that he's unwilling, but he's doing a lot of work on  
 developing what he sees as more fundamental things.

 So I don't think it is likely that Walter will delay or disturb his  
 current effort to get D 2.0 pushed out the door. And he's made it clear  
 that he not interested in going back to "fix" D 1.0. But what I would  
 really like to see (and I don't think it's asking too much) is a clear  
 statement from Walter that he will indeed make the changes the Tango  
 developers are asking for at some future date. I don't think he even  
 needs to commit himself to a specific date, just a reference point --  
 when D 2.0 is final, or when the functional programming stuff is in  
 place, or whenever. I think all that we really NEED at this point is  
 assurance that the two groups are not working at cross purposes.

 If this has already happened, if there is some agreement in place that I  
 just don't know about, then I apologize for this rant. But it seems like  
 little enough to ask.

 Paul


May I ask why is this post called like that?

Walter has just responded that he is ready to make the asked changes to  
the runtime, and is waiting for a permission from some Tango members to do  
this. We will see a resolution pretty soon, hopefully!
Aug 13 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent superdan <super dan.org> writes:
Paul D. Anderson Wrote:


 Robert Fraser Wrote:
 

 I see the D community heading for a split. One side will be D1 (hopefully a D
1.5) +tango, and the other side will be D2+phobos.  I don't think of this as a
bad thing nessescarily, just two different directions.


 
 First, let me say that I have the highest regard, both personally and
professionally, for Walter (and Andre and Bartosz and the others who are
working on D 2.0) and also for the Tango development team. Both groups have a
lot of talent and have worked hard to give us (at no cost!) a great language
and a great library. 
 
 The Tango developers have done important and valuable work, providing sturdy,
efficient and rigorous implementations of many common software components. They
have not only provided the Tango library, but they've also wrung out the
language and pushed its capabilities to give us all a better picture of what is
possible. (I'd love to see what they could do with the new features in D 2.0.) 
 
 And they have been careful not to step on Walter's toes while they do this.
They discussed the problem with Walter at the first D Language Conference and
agreed on a solution: a common runtime module. They have narrowed the
incompatibilities between phobos and tango to a minimal set and are waiting for
Walter to meet them there. To live up to his part of the bargain, to put it
bluntly. A year later he still hasn't done so.
 
 But Walter drives development his own way. Walter himself has said that the
only difference between himself (and D) and a lot of other replacements for
C/C++ is that he's stayed with it longer than they have. And so Walter will
listen and respond to criticism, new concepts, alternative implementations and
frantic pleas, but, at the end of the day, he will work toward what he sees as
the best solution to the most pressing problems. This is mostly a good thing --
Walter has a long-term vision for the D programming language and he is
determined to see it through. Of course, this also has a downside. Work that
doesn't advance the main line that he has mapped out doesn't get his attention,
or his time. It's not that he's unwilling, but he's doing a lot of work on
developing what he sees as more fundamental things.
 
 So I don't think it is likely that Walter will delay or disturb his current
effort to get D 2.0 pushed out the door. And he's made it clear that he not
interested in going back to "fix" D 1.0. But what I would really like to see
(and I don't think it's asking too much) is a clear statement from Walter that
he will indeed make the changes the Tango developers are asking for at some
future date. I don't think he even needs to commit himself to a specific date,
just a reference point -- when D 2.0 is final, or when the functional
programming stuff is in place, or whenever. I think all that we really NEED at
this point is assurance that the two groups are not working at cross purposes.
 
 If this has already happened, if there is some agreement in place that I just
don't know about, then I apologize for this rant. But it seems like little
enough to ask.
 
 Paul
 


bet you wish you'd read earlier what walt wrote in this thread eh.

i thought pretty much along the same lines. but in fact walt's statement is
revealing. changes perspective on the issue 180 radians (joke!). looks like he
wasn't the bad (or careless or uninterested  or unfocused... whatever) dood
afterall? he was just being discreet? i take it there's been talks and stuff
and walt just didn't get permission to mess with tango's code? why? for how
long has this been goin' on, walt? and why didn't you tell this earlier? whoa.
this is an epic moment. like one of those twists in a whodunit. killer wasn't
her, it was her sister!
Aug 13 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Paul D. Anderson wrote:

 But what I
 would really like to see (and I don't think it's asking too much) is
 a clear statement from Walter that he will indeed make the changes
 the Tango developers are asking for at some future date.


In order for this to happen, I need a clear and unambiguous statement 
from the Tango developers that Phobos can incorporate parts of the Tango 
runtime and place them under the Phobos license. I have already provided 
a reciprocal license to Tango.

I've asked for that for over a year, and so far only Sean and Don have 
done so.

Such an agreement is necessary for the following reasons:

1. To ensure Phobos is free of any legal taint and any accusations of 
stealing code.

2. To avoid the untenable issue of a single module in Phobos having 
different license for different lines of code.

I have explained this to the main Tango developers on multiple 
occasions. It is their right and privilege to license Tango as they see 
fit, and I respect that and so have not spoken out on it before. But in 
this thread I am being cast as a roadblock, which I feel is a little 
unfair, so I will loosen my tongue and speak up a bit :-)
Aug 13 2008
next sibling parent reply Paul D. Anderson <paul.d.removethis.anderson comcast.andthis.net> writes:
Walter Bright Wrote:


 Paul D. Anderson wrote:

 But what I
 would really like to see (and I don't think it's asking too much) is
 a clear statement from Walter that he will indeed make the changes
 the Tango developers are asking for at some future date.


 
 In order for this to happen, I need a clear and unambiguous statement 
 from the Tango developers that Phobos can incorporate parts of the Tango 
 runtime and place them under the Phobos license. I have already provided 
 a reciprocal license to Tango.
 
 I've asked for that for over a year, and so far only Sean and Don have 
 done so.
 
 Such an agreement is necessary for the following reasons:
 
 1. To ensure Phobos is free of any legal taint and any accusations of 
 stealing code.
 
 2. To avoid the untenable issue of a single module in Phobos having 
 different license for different lines of code.
 
 I have explained this to the main Tango developers on multiple 
 occasions. It is their right and privilege to license Tango as they see 
 fit, and I respect that and so have not spoken out on it before. But in 
 this thread I am being cast as a roadblock, which I feel is a little 
 unfair, so I will loosen my tongue and speak up a bit :-)


Thanks for clarifying this, and I apologize, Walter, and reiterate my
appreciation for what you do. But I was expressing my frustration at what I
thought the situation was. If there was discussion about licensing issues I
missed it. (I missed your earlier post in this thread because I was busy
"composing" my tirade.)

From my point of view this puts the ball squarely back in Tango's court. Is
there a fundamental problem here? Can we move forward?

Paul
Aug 13 2008
next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Paul D. Anderson wrote:

 Thanks for clarifying this, and I apologize, Walter, and reiterate my
 appreciation for what you do. But I was expressing my frustration at
 what I thought the situation was. If there was discussion about
 licensing issues I missed it. (I missed your earlier post in this
 thread because I was busy "composing" my tirade.)
 
 From my point of view this puts the ball squarely back in Tango's
 court. Is there a fundamental problem here? Can we move forward?



I have not spoken out on it before out of respect for the Tango 
developers' right to license Tango as they see fit. These discussions 
have been done via email, not on a public forum. I know that not all of 
the Tango developers were involved with it, as quite a diverse group has 
worked on Tango, and I apologize for that.

But it is clearly time to bring this out into the open.
Aug 13 2008
next sibling parent BCS <ao pathlink.com> writes:
Reply to Walter,


 Paul D. Anderson wrote:
 

 Thanks for clarifying this, and I apologize, Walter, and reiterate my
 appreciation for what you do. But I was expressing my frustration at
 what I thought the situation was. If there was discussion about
 licensing issues I missed it. (I missed your earlier post in this
 thread because I was busy "composing" my tirade.)
 
 From my point of view this puts the ball squarely back in Tango's
 court. Is there a fundamental problem here? Can we move forward?
 


 I have not spoken out on it before out of respect for the Tango
 developers' right to license Tango as they see fit. These discussions
 have been done via email, not on a public forum. I know that not all
 of the Tango developers were involved with it, as quite a diverse
 group has worked on Tango, and I apologize for that.
 
 But it is clearly time to bring this out into the open.
 


If nothing else it will notify everyone who needs to do something to make 
it work.
Aug 13 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent Nick B <nick.barbalich gmail.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 Paul D. Anderson wrote:

 Thanks for clarifying this, and I apologize, Walter, and reiterate my
 appreciation for what you do. But I was expressing my frustration at
 what I thought the situation was. If there was discussion about
 licensing issues I missed it. (I missed your earlier post in this
 thread because I was busy "composing" my tirade.)

 From my point of view this puts the ball squarely back in Tango's
 court. Is there a fundamental problem here? Can we move forward?


 
 
 I have not spoken out on it before out of respect for the Tango 
 developers' right to license Tango as they see fit. These discussions 
 have been done via email, not on a public forum. I know that not all of 
 the Tango developers were involved with it, as quite a diverse group has 
 worked on Tango, and I apologize for that.
 
 But it is clearly time to bring this out into the open.


Walter

Thank you for bring these private discussions into the open.

Nick B.
Aug 14 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 Paul D. Anderson wrote:

 Thanks for clarifying this, and I apologize, Walter, and reiterate my
 appreciation for what you do. But I was expressing my frustration at
 what I thought the situation was. If there was discussion about
 licensing issues I missed it. (I missed your earlier post in this
 thread because I was busy "composing" my tirade.)

 From my point of view this puts the ball squarely back in Tango's
 court. Is there a fundamental problem here? Can we move forward?


 
 
 I have not spoken out on it before out of respect for the Tango 
 developers' right to license Tango as they see fit. These discussions 
 have been done via email, not on a public forum. I know that not all of 
 the Tango developers were involved with it, as quite a diverse group has 
 worked on Tango, and I apologize for that.
 
 But it is clearly time to bring this out into the open.


I don't want to speak for others, but I believe that the issue with 
opening up the license for Tango concerns the user code, not the 
runtime.  The initial request was for rights to all of Tango.


Sean
Aug 14 2008
parent "Denis Koroskin" <2korden gmail.com> writes:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:15:50 +0400, Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org>  
wrote:


 Walter Bright wrote:

 Paul D. Anderson wrote:

 Thanks for clarifying this, and I apologize, Walter, and reiterate my
 appreciation for what you do. But I was expressing my frustration at
 what I thought the situation was. If there was discussion about
 licensing issues I missed it. (I missed your earlier post in this
 thread because I was busy "composing" my tirade.)

 From my point of view this puts the ball squarely back in Tango's
 court. Is there a fundamental problem here? Can we move forward?


   I have not spoken out on it before out of respect for the Tango  
 developers' right to license Tango as they see fit. These discussions  
 have been done via email, not on a public forum. I know that not all of  
 the Tango developers were involved with it, as quite a diverse group  
 has worked on Tango, and I apologize for that.
  But it is clearly time to bring this out into the open.


 I don't want to speak for others, but I believe that the issue with  
 opening up the license for Tango concerns the user code, not the  
 runtime.  The initial request was for rights to all of Tango.


 Sean


That's a merger - a process so many people are waiting for!
Aug 14 2008
prev sibling parent Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeiros+spam com.gmail> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 Paul D. Anderson wrote:

 Thanks for clarifying this, and I apologize, Walter, and reiterate my
 appreciation for what you do. But I was expressing my frustration at
 what I thought the situation was. If there was discussion about
 licensing issues I missed it. (I missed your earlier post in this
 thread because I was busy "composing" my tirade.)

 From my point of view this puts the ball squarely back in Tango's
 court. Is there a fundamental problem here? Can we move forward?


 
 
 I have not spoken out on it before out of respect for the Tango 
 developers' right to license Tango as they see fit. These discussions 
 have been done via email, not on a public forum. I know that not all of 
 the Tango developers were involved with it, as quite a diverse group has 
 worked on Tango, and I apologize for that.
 
 But it is clearly time to bring this out into the open.


Thanks for bringing it out, at least it helps us "observers" have a 
better picture of why the current status quo. And indeed I was thinking 
that the ball was almost entirely in your court. ~~'

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - Software Developer, MSc. in CS/E graduate
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D
Aug 15 2008
prev sibling parent reply lurker <lurker lurk.com> writes:
Paul D. Anderson Wrote:


 Walter Bright Wrote:
 

 Paul D. Anderson wrote:

 But what I
 would really like to see (and I don't think it's asking too much) is
 a clear statement from Walter that he will indeed make the changes
 the Tango developers are asking for at some future date.


 
 In order for this to happen, I need a clear and unambiguous statement 
 from the Tango developers that Phobos can incorporate parts of the Tango 
 runtime and place them under the Phobos license. I have already provided 
 a reciprocal license to Tango.
 
 I've asked for that for over a year, and so far only Sean and Don have 
 done so.
 
 Such an agreement is necessary for the following reasons:
 
 1. To ensure Phobos is free of any legal taint and any accusations of 
 stealing code.
 
 2. To avoid the untenable issue of a single module in Phobos having 
 different license for different lines of code.
 
 I have explained this to the main Tango developers on multiple 
 occasions. It is their right and privilege to license Tango as they see 
 fit, and I respect that and so have not spoken out on it before. But in 
 this thread I am being cast as a roadblock, which I feel is a little 
 unfair, so I will loosen my tongue and speak up a bit :-)


 
 Thanks for clarifying this, and I apologize, Walter, and reiterate my
appreciation for what you do. But I was expressing my frustration at what I
thought the situation was. If there was discussion about licensing issues I
missed it. (I missed your earlier post in this thread because I was busy
"composing" my tirade.)
 
 From my point of view this puts the ball squarely back in Tango's court. Is
there a fundamental problem here? Can we move forward?
 
 Paul


Hullo,

Thats not happening now or recently. The ball its been rotting in Tango's court
for one year plus. This is huge. I might need a couple days to process this
information. Naming names is scary but, ..... is Walter saying Kris and Lars
"MI Is Evil" Igesund deliberately prevented unification progress?

One thing for sure. 

assert(cat !in bag);

-Lurker
Aug 13 2008
parent reply Christopher Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> writes:
lurker wrote:

 Hullo,
 
 Thats not happening now or recently. The ball its been rotting in Tango's
court for one year plus. This is huge. I might need a couple days to process
this information. Naming names is scary but, ..... is Walter saying Kris and
Lars "MI Is Evil" Igesund deliberately prevented unification progress?
 
 One thing for sure. 
 
 assert(cat !in bag);
 
 -Lurker


Dozens of people have worked on Tango. Tracking who owns the code is 
nontrivial, as is contacting some of them. It might be impossible to get 
a license change cleared.

Of course, if Walter replaced the Phobos runtime entirely with Tango's, 
that might not be an issue. But it would involve using the BSD license 
for those parts.
Aug 13 2008
next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Christopher Wright wrote:

 Dozens of people have worked on Tango. Tracking who owns the code is 
 nontrivial, as is contacting some of them. It might be impossible to get 
 a license change cleared.


I understand that. But my understanding (I am not a lawyer) of copyright 
law is that a couple of lines of code are not copyrightable. But major 
contributors to Tango should be reachable.
Aug 13 2008
parent reply "Chris R. Miller" <lordSaurontheGreat gmail.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 Christopher Wright wrote:

 Dozens of people have worked on Tango. Tracking who owns the code is
 nontrivial, as is contacting some of them. It might be impossible to
 get a license change cleared.


=20
 I understand that. But my understanding (I am not a lawyer) of copyrigh=


t

 law is that a couple of lines of code are not copyrightable. But major
 contributors to Tango should be reachable.


I too am not a lawyer, but I was under the impression that contributions
to Tango are still property of Tango and subject to the global Tango
license.

Maybe someone should ask a lawyer...  there's a good radio
phone-a-lawyer guy in my area I could call.
Aug 13 2008
parent reply Sean Reque <seanthenewt yahoo.com> writes:
Chris R. Miller Wrote:


 Walter Bright wrote:

 Christopher Wright wrote:

 Dozens of people have worked on Tango. Tracking who owns the code is
 nontrivial, as is contacting some of them. It might be impossible to
 get a license change cleared.


 
 I understand that. But my understanding (I am not a lawyer) of copyright
 law is that a couple of lines of code are not copyrightable. But major
 contributors to Tango should be reachable.


 
 I too am not a lawyer, but I was under the impression that contributions
 to Tango are still property of Tango and subject to the global Tango
 license.
 
 Maybe someone should ask a lawyer...  there's a good radio
 phone-a-lawyer guy in my area I could call.
 
 



There could be cause for concern. This is from
http://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html

"""
Contributed Code

In order to keep SQLite completely free and unencumbered by copyright, all new
contributors to the SQLite code base are asked to dedicate their contributions
to the public domain. If you want to send a patch or enhancement for possible
inclusion in the SQLite source tree, please accompany the patch with the
following statement:

    The author or authors of this code dedicate any and all copyright interest
in this code to the public domain. We make this dedication for the benefit of
the public at large and to the detriment of our heirs and successors. We intend
this dedication to be an overt act of relinquishment in perpetuity of all
present and future rights to this code under copyright law. 

We are not able to accept patches or changes to SQLite that are not accompanied
by a statement such as the above. In addition, if you make changes or
enhancements as an employee, then a simple statement such as the above is
insufficient. You must also send by surface mail a copyright release signed by
a company officer. A signed original of the copyright release should be mailed
to:

"""
Aug 13 2008
parent reply Brad Roberts <braddr bellevue.puremagic.com> writes:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Sean Reque wrote:


 Chris R. Miller Wrote:
 

 Walter Bright wrote:

 Christopher Wright wrote:

 Dozens of people have worked on Tango. Tracking who owns the code is
 nontrivial, as is contacting some of them. It might be impossible to
 get a license change cleared.


 
 I understand that. But my understanding (I am not a lawyer) of copyright
 law is that a couple of lines of code are not copyrightable. But major
 contributors to Tango should be reachable.


 
 I too am not a lawyer, but I was under the impression that contributions
 to Tango are still property of Tango and subject to the global Tango
 license.
 
 Maybe someone should ask a lawyer...  there's a good radio
 phone-a-lawyer guy in my area I could call.
 
 


 
 
 There could be cause for concern. This is from
http://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html
 
 """
 Contributed Code
 
 In order to keep SQLite completely free and unencumbered by copyright, all new
contributors to the SQLite code base are asked to dedicate their contributions
to the public domain. If you want to send a patch or enhancement for possible
inclusion in the SQLite source tree, please accompany the patch with the
following statement:
 
     The author or authors of this code dedicate any and all copyright interest
in this code to the public domain. We make this dedication for the benefit of
the public at large and to the detriment of our heirs and successors. We intend
this dedication to be an overt act of relinquishment in perpetuity of all
present and future rights to this code under copyright law. 
 
 We are not able to accept patches or changes to SQLite that are not
accompanied by a statement such as the above. In addition, if you make changes
or enhancements as an employee, then a simple statement such as the above is
insufficient. You must also send by surface mail a copyright release signed by
a company officer. A signed original of the copyright release should be mailed
to:
 
 """


The number of people that have touched the runtime layer of Tango is very 
limited.  The upper layers are of no concern for this thread.

Later,
Brad
Aug 13 2008
next sibling parent reply "Chris R. Miller" <lordSaurontheGreat gmail.com> writes:
Brad Roberts wrote:

 On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Sean Reque wrote:
=20

 Chris R. Miller Wrote:


 Walter Bright wrote:

 Christopher Wright wrote:

 Dozens of people have worked on Tango. Tracking who owns the code i=










s

 nontrivial, as is contacting some of them. It might be impossible t=










o

 get a license change cleared.


 I understand that. But my understanding (I am not a lawyer) of copyr=








ight

 law is that a couple of lines of code are not copyrightable. But maj=








or

 contributors to Tango should be reachable.


 I too am not a lawyer, but I was under the impression that contributi=






ons

 to Tango are still property of Tango and subject to the global Tango
 license.

 Maybe someone should ask a lawyer...  there's a good radio
 phone-a-lawyer guy in my area I could call.


 There could be cause for concern. This is from http://www.sqlite.org/c=




opyright.html

 """
 Contributed Code

 In order to keep SQLite completely free and unencumbered by copyright,=




 all new contributors to the SQLite code base are asked to dedicate their=
 contributions to the public domain. If you want to send a patch or enhan=
cement for possible inclusion in the SQLite source tree, please accompany=
 the patch with the following statement:

     The author or authors of this code dedicate any and all copyright =




interest in this code to the public domain. We make this dedication for t=
he benefit of the public at large and to the detriment of our heirs and s=
uccessors. We intend this dedication to be an overt act of relinquishment=
 in perpetuity of all present and future rights to this code under copyri=
ght law.=20

 We are not able to accept patches or changes to SQLite that are not ac=




companied by a statement such as the above. In addition, if you make chan=
ges or enhancements as an employee, then a simple statement such as the a=
bove is insufficient. You must also send by surface mail a copyright rele=
ase signed by a company officer. A signed original of the copyright relea=
se should be mailed to:

 """


=20
 The number of people that have touched the runtime layer of Tango is ve=


ry=20

 limited.  The upper layers are of no concern for this thread.


Well why not try to establish a precedent for all of Tango?  Tango is
dual licensed Academic Free and BSD.  So long as Walter + friends
include a notice in the Readme file, it's completely legal for him to
use any or ALL of Tango.

That's a reality, since it's common practice to consider a note in the
readme fulfillment of the BSD attribution clause.  Most popular video
games do this to legally use the ZLib compression libraries.

As for the Sqlite disclaimer, I would think that's just an insurance.
Plenty of other organizations don't do that.  I've been on the Linux
Kernel Janitor's list for two years now, and none of the patches that
actually go into the Holy Kernel Itself are ever "protected" by any such
disclaimer from the contributors.

I would argue that by contributing to Tango/LKJ/Sqlite/OSS you are
implicitly stating that you're /giving/ that code to the organization.
No strings attached, released under the organization's license.

Just my $0.02.  IANAL, but from all I've observed, that is the way
things work (if not legally, then in a de facto way).
Aug 13 2008
parent reply Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:
Chris R. Miller wrote:


 Brad Roberts wrote:

 On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Sean Reque wrote:
 

 Chris R. Miller Wrote:


 Walter Bright wrote:

 Christopher Wright wrote:

 Dozens of people have worked on Tango. Tracking who owns the code is
 nontrivial, as is contacting some of them. It might be impossible to
 get a license change cleared.


 I understand that. But my understanding (I am not a lawyer) of
 copyright law is that a couple of lines of code are not copyrightable.
 But major contributors to Tango should be reachable.


 I too am not a lawyer, but I was under the impression that
 contributions to Tango are still property of Tango and subject to the
 global Tango license.

 Maybe someone should ask a lawyer...  there's a good radio
 phone-a-lawyer guy in my area I could call.


 There could be cause for concern. This is from
 http://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html

 """
 Contributed Code

 In order to keep SQLite completely free and unencumbered by copyright,
 all new contributors to the SQLite code base are asked to dedicate their
 contributions to the public domain. If you want to send a patch or
 enhancement for possible inclusion in the SQLite source tree, please
 accompany the patch with the following statement:

     The author or authors of this code dedicate any and all copyright
     interest in this code to the public domain. We make this dedication
     for the benefit of the public at large and to the detriment of our
     heirs and successors. We intend this dedication to be an overt act
     of relinquishment in perpetuity of all present and future rights to
     this code under copyright law.

 We are not able to accept patches or changes to SQLite that are not
 accompanied by a statement such as the above. In addition, if you make
 changes or enhancements as an employee, then a simple statement such as
 the above is insufficient. You must also send by surface mail a
 copyright release signed by a company officer. A signed original of the
 copyright release should be mailed to:

 """


 
 The number of people that have touched the runtime layer of Tango is very
 limited.  The upper layers are of no concern for this thread.


 
 Well why not try to establish a precedent for all of Tango?  Tango is
 dual licensed Academic Free and BSD.  So long as Walter + friends
 include a notice in the Readme file, it's completely legal for him to
 use any or ALL of Tango.
 
 That's a reality, since it's common practice to consider a note in the
 readme fulfillment of the BSD attribution clause.  Most popular video
 games do this to legally use the ZLib compression libraries.
 
 As for the Sqlite disclaimer, I would think that's just an insurance.
 Plenty of other organizations don't do that.  I've been on the Linux
 Kernel Janitor's list for two years now, and none of the patches that
 actually go into the Holy Kernel Itself are ever "protected" by any such
 disclaimer from the contributors.
 
 I would argue that by contributing to Tango/LKJ/Sqlite/OSS you are
 implicitly stating that you're /giving/ that code to the organization.
 No strings attached, released under the organization's license.


Tango as a project don't have copyright. It is kept by the individual
contributors.

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango
Aug 14 2008
parent reply Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com> writes:
Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:

 
 Tango as a project don't have copyright. It is kept by the individual
 contributors.
 


wouldn't it be better that Tango as a project would own the copyright
for all the code?
In case that the project wants to change the license or give someone
specific permission to the code base (like Walter asks for) that would
be easier to accomplish by the Tango's maintainers. in the current state
of affairs you need to contact each contributer and get his personal
approval.
Linux has the same policy and thus if Linus wants to move from GPLv2 to
v3 he can't since he needs approval of all the thousands of contributers
to the Linux kernel, some of which are dead.
This is why all the GNU code is assigned to the FSF and without your
agreement to transfer your copyrights to the FSF they won't accept your
code. This is also standard practice in almost all OSS projects (with
Linux a notable exception as described above).

Of course, the sooner such a move is decided upon the easier it'll be to
accomplish. Linux, for example, cannot change the license without
talking to the dead or reimplementing parts of the code.
Aug 14 2008
next sibling parent Thomas Brix Larsen <brix brix-verden.dk> writes:
Yigal Chripun wrote:


 Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:

 
 Tango as a project don't have copyright. It is kept by the individual
 contributors.
 


 
 wouldn't it be better that Tango as a project would own the copyright
 for all the code?
 In case that the project wants to change the license or give someone
 specific permission to the code base (like Walter asks for) that would
 be easier to accomplish by the Tango's maintainers. in the current state
 of affairs you need to contact each contributer and get his personal
 approval.
 Linux has the same policy and thus if Linus wants to move from GPLv2 to
 v3 he can't since he needs approval of all the thousands of contributers
 to the Linux kernel, some of which are dead.
 This is why all the GNU code is assigned to the FSF and without your
 agreement to transfer your copyrights to the FSF they won't accept your
 code. This is also standard practice in almost all OSS projects (with
 Linux a notable exception as described above).
 


I'm not so sure about that. KDE and Wine atleast isn't copyrighted by their
project foundations, but by their contributors, just like Linux.


 Of course, the sooner such a move is decided upon the easier it'll be to
 accomplish. Linux, for example, cannot change the license without
 talking to the dead or reimplementing parts of the code.
Aug 14 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:
Yigal Chripun wrote:


 Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:

 
 Tango as a project don't have copyright. It is kept by the individual
 contributors.
 


 
 wouldn't it be better that Tango as a project would own the copyright
 for all the code?


At the very least you need some body (foundation, company) for that.

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango
Aug 14 2008
parent Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com> writes:
Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:

 Yigal Chripun wrote:
 

 Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:

 Tango as a project don't have copyright. It is kept by the individual
 contributors.


 wouldn't it be better that Tango as a project would own the copyright
 for all the code?


 
 At the very least you need some body (foundation, company) for that.
 


Of course and I'm sure it's a hassle to create one. but it is better to
have such a body in the long term in order to facilitate the growth of
the community, I think.
Aug 14 2008
prev sibling parent Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
Yigal Chripun wrote:

 Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:

 Tango as a project don't have copyright. It is kept by the individual
 contributors.


 
 wouldn't it be better that Tango as a project would own the copyright
 for all the code?
 In case that the project wants to change the license or give someone
 specific permission to the code base (like Walter asks for) that would
 be easier to accomplish by the Tango's maintainers. in the current state
 of affairs you need to contact each contributer and get his personal
 approval.


Although the contributors retain copyright to their contributions they 
still must agree to place their code under the Tango license.  This has 
never been an issue for us in the past, but then no one has ever asked 
us to change our license before :-)



 Linux has the same policy and thus if Linus wants to move from GPLv2 to
 v3 he can't since he needs approval of all the thousands of contributers
 to the Linux kernel, some of which are dead.


It's a good point, though the current Tango license is so loose that I 
don't foresee us ever needing to change it.  All the artistic license 
requires is basically that the author information not be removed from 
the source code.  That's as close to Public Domain as you can get 
without actually being Public Domain.


 Of course, the sooner such a move is decided upon the easier it'll be to
 accomplish. Linux, for example, cannot change the license without
 talking to the dead or reimplementing parts of the code.


Definitely.


Sean
Aug 14 2008
prev sibling parent reply Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
Brad Roberts wrote:

 On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Sean Reque wrote:
 

 Chris R. Miller Wrote:


 Walter Bright wrote:

 Christopher Wright wrote:

 Dozens of people have worked on Tango. Tracking who owns the code is
 nontrivial, as is contacting some of them. It might be impossible to
 get a license change cleared.


 I understand that. But my understanding (I am not a lawyer) of copyright
 law is that a couple of lines of code are not copyrightable. But major
 contributors to Tango should be reachable.


 I too am not a lawyer, but I was under the impression that contributions
 to Tango are still property of Tango and subject to the global Tango
 license.

 Maybe someone should ask a lawyer...  there's a good radio
 phone-a-lawyer guy in my area I could call.


 There could be cause for concern. This is from
http://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html

 """
 Contributed Code

 In order to keep SQLite completely free and unencumbered by copyright, all new
contributors to the SQLite code base are asked to dedicate their contributions
to the public domain. If you want to send a patch or enhancement for possible
inclusion in the SQLite source tree, please accompany the patch with the
following statement:

     The author or authors of this code dedicate any and all copyright interest
in this code to the public domain. We make this dedication for the benefit of
the public at large and to the detriment of our heirs and successors. We intend
this dedication to be an overt act of relinquishment in perpetuity of all
present and future rights to this code under copyright law. 

 We are not able to accept patches or changes to SQLite that are not
accompanied by a statement such as the above. In addition, if you make changes
or enhancements as an employee, then a simple statement such as the above is
insufficient. You must also send by surface mail a copyright release signed by
a company officer. A signed original of the copyright release should be mailed
to:

 """


 
 The number of people that have touched the runtime layer of Tango is very 
 limited.  The upper layers are of no concern for this thread.


So limited, in fact, that the two Tango members who have not given 
permission to use their code have never actually touched the runtime. 
I'm very diligent about the "author" labels in the runtime modules, so 
this is easy to see.  However, the problem is that there is no way to 
prove this to Walter, and he refuses to even look at Tango without 
permission from all of us for fear of "taint."  Thus the impasse.  Given 
Walter's experience with copyright issues I think his caution is 
certainly well-founded, but it does make things somewhat difficult if 
all of the contributors to Tango as a whole either can not or will not 
make their contributions Public Domain for use by Phobos.

To be honest, I would even much rather have stuck with an artistic 
license at least for my portion, but what can you do.  Fortunately, I 
trust that Walter isn't going to start trying to sell my code to 
companies and claim it's his own (my only real issue with the Public 
Domain license to begin with).


Sean
Aug 14 2008
parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
"Sean Kelly" wrote

 The number of people that have touched the runtime layer of Tango is very 
 limited.  The upper layers are of no concern for this thread.


 So limited, in fact, that the two Tango members who have not given 
 permission to use their code have never actually touched the runtime. I'm 
 very diligent about the "author" labels in the runtime modules, so this is 
 easy to see.  However, the problem is that there is no way to prove this 
 to Walter, and he refuses to even look at Tango without permission from 
 all of us for fear of "taint."  Thus the impasse.


Eh?  As far as I know, if you don't put your name on it, you don't own it. 
If I copyright something by putting a copyright notice on it after I release 
it, it doesn't magically copyright all the previously released versions that 
didn't have that copyright notice.  *Especially* if there is an existing 
copyright notice in the file attributed to someone else, and the file is in 
the project that I am contributing to!  This should be a non-issue.  How 
could you ever "prove" this to anyone without videotaping them typing in the 
code?  I respect that certain Tango authors do not want to have their code 
imported into Phobos, but that should not be a blocker if their code isn't 
in question.

And even if contributors do not want their code in Phobos, too bad so sad. 
They agreed to license their code under the BSD license, and that means 
anyone can use the code for any reason as long as the original authors get 
credit.


 Given Walter's experience with copyright issues I think his caution is 
 certainly well-founded, but it does make things somewhat difficult if all 
 of the contributors to Tango as a whole either can not or will not make 
 their contributions Public Domain for use by Phobos.


I think his caution is a little too overzealous (if this is the reason). 
The whole point of an open-source license is code reuse.  Phobos has an open 
source license.  Tango has an open source license.  Where is the conflict?

-Steve
Aug 14 2008
parent reply Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:


 "Sean Kelly" wrote

 The number of people that have touched the runtime layer of Tango is
 very
 limited.  The upper layers are of no concern for this thread.


 So limited, in fact, that the two Tango members who have not given
 permission to use their code have never actually touched the runtime. I'm
 very diligent about the "author" labels in the runtime modules, so this
 is
 easy to see.  However, the problem is that there is no way to prove this
 to Walter, and he refuses to even look at Tango without permission from
 all of us for fear of "taint."  Thus the impasse.


 
 Eh?  As far as I know, if you don't put your name on it, you don't own it.


In many (most) countries, writing it means you have copyright. Whether you
put your name there or not is irrelevant. Some have even stronger
protection of the connection between code/work and author.

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango
Aug 14 2008
parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
"Lars Ivar Igesund" wrote

 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:


 "Sean Kelly" wrote

 The number of people that have touched the runtime layer of Tango is
 very
 limited.  The upper layers are of no concern for this thread.


 So limited, in fact, that the two Tango members who have not given
 permission to use their code have never actually touched the runtime. 
 I'm
 very diligent about the "author" labels in the runtime modules, so this
 is
 easy to see.  However, the problem is that there is no way to prove this
 to Walter, and he refuses to even look at Tango without permission from
 all of us for fear of "taint."  Thus the impasse.


 Eh?  As far as I know, if you don't put your name on it, you don't own 
 it.


 In many (most) countries, writing it means you have copyright. Whether you
 put your name there or not is irrelevant. Some have even stronger
 protection of the connection between code/work and author.


I would think that only comes into play if someone else publishes the code 
after stealing it from you.  If you release it with someone else's name as 
the copyright holder, I don't see how you can prove your rights.  It 
shouldn't be hard to prove who contributed what since all the history is in 
svn.

To this end, even if Walter DID get permission from all the Tango devs, this 
does not preclude the possibility that someone else's code (not even from 
Tango) was stolen and contributed to Tango.  There is no way to be 100% 
sure, so this whole issue is rather petty to me.

But wouldn't it be enough for all the Tango devs (who didn't write the 
runtime) to put that in a signed statement?  I can't see how releasing *all* 
of Tango in PD (or even the runtime, for that matter, but that's up to the 
devs of the runtime) makes it any more valid.

-Steve
Aug 14 2008
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 To this end, even if Walter DID get permission from all the Tango devs, this 
 does not preclude the possibility that someone else's code (not even from 
 Tango) was stolen and contributed to Tango.  There is no way to be 100% 
 sure, so this whole issue is rather petty to me.


That would not be good, but at least I would have taken reasonable steps 
  and that's all that could be expected. In my experience with legal 
cases, taking reasonable steps carries the day. Frankly, the whole 
economy would collapse if you could not take a signed statement at face 
value.



 But wouldn't it be enough for all the Tango devs (who didn't write the 
 runtime) to put that in a signed statement?  I can't see how releasing *all* 
 of Tango in PD (or even the runtime, for that matter, but that's up to the 
 devs of the runtime) makes it any more valid.


Sean has emailed me an archive of the code that he owns the rights to. I 
  believe this is probably sufficient to get compatibility, in which 
case that is plenty good enough.
Aug 14 2008
parent reply Jason House <jason.james.house gmail.com> writes:
Walter Bright Wrote:
 

 Sean has emailed me an archive of the code that he owns the rights to. I 
   believe this is probably sufficient to get compatibility, in which 
 case that is plenty good enough.


I'd hate for this thread to end with an apparent resolution only to flair up
after another year of no progress.

What are the next steps?  I assume it'll take a few months to fully integrate
the two code bases, but we should be able to know sooner than that if what Sean
sent you want enough to integrate the runtimes or not.

I assume that the risk of legal taint will prevent you from doing a combined
release of dmd v1.x, common runtime, phobos, and tango?  Even without that, I
assume releasing Tango with the dmd compiler may hamper the overall release
process.

Even so, once there's a common runtime, it'd be nice if we could have a
combined releases of dmd+phobos+tango.  If a community member provided a combo
release (probably following a Tango release), would you put it up as a
downloadable item on the digital mars site?
Aug 15 2008
next sibling parent Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
Jason House wrote:

 Walter Bright Wrote:
  

 Sean has emailed me an archive of the code that he owns the rights to. I 
   believe this is probably sufficient to get compatibility, in which 
 case that is plenty good enough.


 
 I'd hate for this thread to end with an apparent resolution only to flair up
after another year of no progress.
 
 What are the next steps?  I assume it'll take a few months to fully integrate
the two code bases, but we should be able to know sooner than that if what Sean
sent you want enough to integrate the runtimes or not.
 
 I assume that the risk of legal taint will prevent you from doing a combined
release of dmd v1.x, common runtime, phobos, and tango?  Even without that, I
assume releasing Tango with the dmd compiler may hamper the overall release
process.
 
 Even so, once there's a common runtime, it'd be nice if we could have a
combined releases of dmd+phobos+tango.  If a community member provided a combo
release (probably following a Tango release), would you put it up as a
downloadable item on the digital mars site?


The Tango team has provided such a release for quite a while now.  It's 
the binary release with Tangobos bundled, and includes the latest DMD, 
Tango, and Phobos (as Tangobos) all in a single package.  We could even 
produce a nightly binary snapshot bundle if anyone cared... right now 
we're just producing a plain old Tango binary snapshot.


Sean
Aug 15 2008
prev sibling parent reply Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:
Jason House wrote:


 Walter Bright Wrote:
  

 Sean has emailed me an archive of the code that he owns the rights to. I
   believe this is probably sufficient to get compatibility, in which
 case that is plenty good enough.


 
 I'd hate for this thread to end with an apparent resolution only to flair
 up after another year of no progress.
 
 What are the next steps?  I assume it'll take a few months to fully
 integrate the two code bases, but we should be able to know sooner than
 that if what Sean sent you want enough to integrate the runtimes or not.
 
 I assume that the risk of legal taint will prevent you from doing a
 combined release of dmd v1.x, common runtime, phobos, and tango?  Even
 without that, I assume releasing Tango with the dmd compiler may hamper
 the overall release process.
 
 Even so, once there's a common runtime, it'd be nice if we could have a
 combined releases of dmd+phobos+tango.  If a community member provided a
 combo release (probably following a Tango release), would you put it up as
 a downloadable item on the digital mars site?


There are other compilers than DMD, so I (as the current Tango release
manager) see no practical way to coordinate releases of Tango and DMD.
Tango bundles latest stable DMD when it is released, and if Tango is ever
bundled with DMD, I would assume that to work in the same manner.

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango
Aug 15 2008
parent reply Jason House <jason.james.house gmail.com> writes:
Lars Ivar Igesund Wrote:


 Jason House wrote:
 

 Even so, once there's a common runtime, it'd be nice if we could have a
 combined releases of dmd+phobos+tango.  If a community member provided a
 combo release (probably following a Tango release), would you put it up as
 a downloadable item on the digital mars site?


 
 There are other compilers than DMD, so I (as the current Tango release
 manager) see no practical way to coordinate releases of Tango and 


DMD.

 Tango bundles latest stable DMD when it is released, and if Tango is ever
 bundled with DMD, I would assume that to work in the same manner.


Yes, that's the way it is now, and it's not something I really expect to change
except that the non-runtime phobos pieces would be left in.  

The key question hidden in my last paragraph is if Walter would treat the Tango
bundles as a first-class release of dmd.  That means including it for one-click
download from the download page with appropriate markings.  Maybe using the
combined Tango release as the beta version and dmd+phobos as the alpha version?
 I'm not too sure, but I'd really love to see a commitment to a unified D
standard library (even if it bleeding edge releases miss some parts of the
standard library)
Aug 15 2008
parent Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Jason House wrote:

 The key question hidden in my last paragraph is if Walter would treat
 the Tango bundles as a first-class release of dmd.  That means
 including it for one-click download from the download page with
 appropriate markings.  Maybe using the combined Tango release as the
 beta version and dmd+phobos as the alpha version?  I'm not too sure,
 but I'd really love to see a commitment to a unified D standard
 library (even if it bleeding edge releases miss some parts of the
 standard library)


At the moment what we are planning to do with the runtime drop Sean 
provided us is to move towards core api compatibility. It's a good first 
step.
Aug 15 2008
prev sibling parent reply Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
Christopher Wright wrote:

 lurker wrote:

 Hullo,

 Thats not happening now or recently. The ball its been rotting in 
 Tango's court for one year plus. This is huge. I might need a couple 
 days to process this information. Naming names is scary but, ..... is 
 Walter saying Kris and Lars "MI Is Evil" Igesund deliberately 
 prevented unification progress?

 One thing for sure.
 assert(cat !in bag);

 -Lurker


 
 Dozens of people have worked on Tango. Tracking who owns the code is 
 nontrivial, as is contacting some of them. It might be impossible to get 
 a license change cleared.
 
 Of course, if Walter replaced the Phobos runtime entirely with Tango's, 
 that might not be an issue. But it would involve using the BSD license 
 for those parts.


Tango is actually dual licensed under both the BSD and an artistic 
license.  We had actually considered a public domain license before 
Tango was announced until it was pointed out (by Thomas Kuehne, I 
believe) that copyright laws in some countries don't allow public domain 
as an option and treat such code as if the owner had not licensed it at 
all.  Then we considered the ZLib license because it doesn't require 
attribution like the BSD license, but there were objections for this 
being a nonstandard license.  So we finally settled on a dual BSD and 
artistic license to allow Tango to be the most broadly usable.

To address the second issue, I think the only practical solution is for 
Phobos to run on top of the Tango runtime, quite similar to the Tango / 
Tangobos bundle we already provide.  But this is simply my opinion.


Sean
Aug 14 2008
parent reply Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:
Sean Kelly wrote:


 Christopher Wright wrote:

 lurker wrote:

 Hullo,

 Thats not happening now or recently. The ball its been rotting in
 Tango's court for one year plus. This is huge. I might need a couple
 days to process this information. Naming names is scary but, ..... is
 Walter saying Kris and Lars "MI Is Evil" Igesund deliberately
 prevented unification progress?

 One thing for sure.
 assert(cat !in bag);

 -Lurker


 
 Dozens of people have worked on Tango. Tracking who owns the code is
 nontrivial, as is contacting some of them. It might be impossible to get
 a license change cleared.
 
 Of course, if Walter replaced the Phobos runtime entirely with Tango's,
 that might not be an issue. But it would involve using the BSD license
 for those parts.


 
 Tango is actually dual licensed under both the BSD and an artistic
 license.  We had actually considered a public domain license before
 Tango was announced until it was pointed out (by Thomas Kuehne, I
 believe) that copyright laws in some countries don't allow public domain
 as an option and treat such code as if the owner had not licensed it at
 all.  Then we considered the ZLib license because it doesn't require
 attribution like the BSD license, but there were objections for this
 being a nonstandard license.  So we finally settled on a dual BSD and
 artistic license to allow Tango to be the most broadly usable.


Academic, not artistic ;)

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango
Aug 14 2008
parent Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
== Quote from Lars Ivar Igesund (larsivar igesund.net)'s article

 Sean Kelly wrote:

 Christopher Wright wrote:

 lurker wrote:

 Hullo,

 Thats not happening now or recently. The ball its been rotting in
 Tango's court for one year plus. This is huge. I might need a couple
 days to process this information. Naming names is scary but, ..... is
 Walter saying Kris and Lars "MI Is Evil" Igesund deliberately
 prevented unification progress?

 One thing for sure.
 assert(cat !in bag);

 -Lurker


 Dozens of people have worked on Tango. Tracking who owns the code is
 nontrivial, as is contacting some of them. It might be impossible to get
 a license change cleared.

 Of course, if Walter replaced the Phobos runtime entirely with Tango's,
 that might not be an issue. But it would involve using the BSD license
 for those parts.


 Tango is actually dual licensed under both the BSD and an artistic
 license.  We had actually considered a public domain license before
 Tango was announced until it was pointed out (by Thomas Kuehne, I
 believe) that copyright laws in some countries don't allow public domain
 as an option and treat such code as if the owner had not licensed it at
 all.  Then we considered the ZLib license because it doesn't require
 attribution like the BSD license, but there were objections for this
 being a nonstandard license.  So we finally settled on a dual BSD and
 artistic license to allow Tango to be the most broadly usable.


 Academic, not artistic ;)


Whatever, the difference is academic ;-) (I am on a roll with the bad jokes
lately)


Sean
Aug 14 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent Jason House <jason.james.house gmail.com> writes:
Walter Bright Wrote:


 Paul D. Anderson wrote:

 But what I
 would really like to see (and I don't think it's asking too much) is
 a clear statement from Walter that he will indeed make the changes
 the Tango developers are asking for at some future date.


 
 In order for this to happen, I need a clear and unambiguous statement 
 from the Tango developers that Phobos can incorporate parts of the Tango 
 runtime and place them under the Phobos license. I have already provided 
 a reciprocal license to Tango.
 
 I've asked for that for over a year, and so far only Sean and Don have 
 done so.
 
 Such an agreement is necessary for the following reasons:
 
 1. To ensure Phobos is free of any legal taint and any accusations of 
 stealing code.
 
 2. To avoid the untenable issue of a single module in Phobos having 
 different license for different lines of code.
 
 I have explained this to the main Tango developers on multiple 
 occasions. It is their right and privilege to license Tango as they see 
 fit, and I respect that and so have not spoken out on it before. But in 
 this thread I am being cast as a roadblock, which I feel is a little 
 unfair, so I will loosen my tongue and speak up a bit :-)


I prefer a looser tongue as long as it remains polite. (I consider your posts
in this thread to be polite)
Aug 13 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:


 Paul D. Anderson wrote:

 But what I
 would really like to see (and I don't think it's asking too much) is
 a clear statement from Walter that he will indeed make the changes
 the Tango developers are asking for at some future date.


 
 In order for this to happen, I need a clear and unambiguous statement
 from the Tango developers that Phobos can incorporate parts of the Tango
 runtime and place them under the Phobos license. I have already provided
 a reciprocal license to Tango.
 
 I've asked for that for over a year, and so far only Sean and Don have
 done so.
 
 Such an agreement is necessary for the following reasons:
 
 1. To ensure Phobos is free of any legal taint and any accusations of
 stealing code.
 
 2. To avoid the untenable issue of a single module in Phobos having
 different license for different lines of code.
 
 I have explained this to the main Tango developers on multiple
 occasions. It is their right and privilege to license Tango as they see
 fit, and I respect that and so have not spoken out on it before. But in
 this thread I am being cast as a roadblock, which I feel is a little
 unfair, so I will loosen my tongue and speak up a bit :-)


And we have on equally many occasions told you that the code you need is
available. :)

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango
Aug 14 2008
next sibling parent Helmut Leitner <leitner wikiservice.at> writes:
Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:

I have explained this to the main Tango developers on multiple
occasions. It is their right and privilege to license Tango as they see
fit, and I respect that and so have not spoken out on it before. But in
this thread I am being cast as a roadblock, which I feel is a little
unfair, so I will loosen my tongue and speak up a bit :-)


 
 
 And we have on equally many occasions told you that the code you need is
 available. :)
 


As a peripheral observer I see this partly as a communication problem,
which does not put blame on one side or the other (have neither the
intention nor the information nor the position to do so) but this
doesn't make the problem less serious, quite to the contrary.

Primarily I understand Walter. In his position I would really
hate to be confronted with individual code contributor's notions,
so that the license problem can't be solved for all the affected
code and once for all, with a calculable (not a linear) effort.

Assuming to understand Walter's character a little, I would think that
there are principles of efficiency involved, that are also at the basis
of D'S language design that we appreciate, that are not negotiable.

Helmut
Aug 14 2008
prev sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:

 I have explained this to the main Tango developers on multiple
 occasions. It is their right and privilege to license Tango as they see
 fit, and I respect that and so have not spoken out on it before. But in
 this thread I am being cast as a roadblock, which I feel is a little
 unfair, so I will loosen my tongue and speak up a bit :-)


 
 And we have on equally many occasions told you that the code you need is
 available. :)


I respectfully disagree. The Tango team has stopped short of providing a 
license to use the Tango code in Phobos with a reciprocal agreement that 
allows it to be distributed under the Phobos license. I also cannot 
accept something vague, it has to be explicit.

I've dealt with lawyers many times, and spelling it out directly and 
explicitly avoids a lot of future potential problems. Furthermore, if 
Phobos has a wishy-washy legal pedigree, corporate lawyers will not buy 
off on allowing D to be used in their companies.

This issue must be settled in advance of looking at Tango, not after the 
fact.
Aug 14 2008
next sibling parent reply Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:


 Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:

 I have explained this to the main Tango developers on multiple
 occasions. It is their right and privilege to license Tango as they see
 fit, and I respect that and so have not spoken out on it before. But in
 this thread I am being cast as a roadblock, which I feel is a little
 unfair, so I will loosen my tongue and speak up a bit :-)


 
 And we have on equally many occasions told you that the code you need is
 available. :)


 
 I respectfully disagree. The Tango team has stopped short of providing a
 license to use the Tango code in Phobos with a reciprocal agreement that
 allows it to be distributed under the Phobos license. I also cannot
 accept something vague, it has to be explicit.


No, this is not correct. Neither me nor Kris (who have been the ones
involved) have any sort of copyright on the runtime. Sean have, and he has
given you this explicit agreemeent. As asserted elsewhere, and by others,
the copyrights on the rest of Tango not pertaining to the runtime, is not
of relevance.

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango
Aug 14 2008
next sibling parent superdan <super dan.org> writes:
Lars Ivar Igesund Wrote:


 Walter Bright wrote:
 

 Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:

 I have explained this to the main Tango developers on multiple
 occasions. It is their right and privilege to license Tango as they see
 fit, and I respect that and so have not spoken out on it before. But in
 this thread I am being cast as a roadblock, which I feel is a little
 unfair, so I will loosen my tongue and speak up a bit :-)


 
 And we have on equally many occasions told you that the code you need is
 available. :)


 
 I respectfully disagree. The Tango team has stopped short of providing a
 license to use the Tango code in Phobos with a reciprocal agreement that
 allows it to be distributed under the Phobos license. I also cannot
 accept something vague, it has to be explicit.


 
 No, this is not correct. Neither me nor Kris (who have been the ones
 involved) have any sort of copyright on the runtime. Sean have, and he has
 given you this explicit agreemeent. As asserted elsewhere, and by others,
 the copyrights on the rest of Tango not pertaining to the runtime, is not
 of relevance.


cut the oxpoop. `is not of relevance' afforded you to say brad and walter are
stealing code from tango. walter is effing right to be pissed. if anyone told
me that i'd bury their effing nose in their face.

why have you been stalling for a year, lars? time to come clean.
Aug 14 2008
prev sibling parent reply "Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> writes:
"Lars Ivar Igesund" <larsivar igesund.net> wrote in message 
news:g813qj$amf$2 digitalmars.com...

 Walter Bright wrote:


 Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:

 I have explained this to the main Tango developers on multiple
 occasions. It is their right and privilege to license Tango as they see
 fit, and I respect that and so have not spoken out on it before. But in
 this thread I am being cast as a roadblock, which I feel is a little
 unfair, so I will loosen my tongue and speak up a bit :-)


 And we have on equally many occasions told you that the code you need is
 available. :)


 I respectfully disagree. The Tango team has stopped short of providing a
 license to use the Tango code in Phobos with a reciprocal agreement that
 allows it to be distributed under the Phobos license. I also cannot
 accept something vague, it has to be explicit.


 No, this is not correct. Neither me nor Kris (who have been the ones
 involved) have any sort of copyright on the runtime. Sean have, and he has
 given you this explicit agreemeent. As asserted elsewhere, and by others,
 the copyrights on the rest of Tango not pertaining to the runtime, is not
 of relevance.


Slightly OT, and directed at this whole situation: I just sit back and 
laugh.  *This* is open-source software?  *This* is the supposed "freedom" 
and "openness" that the whole movement is about?  People bickering for a 
_year_ over minutiae of licenses which are supposed to promote free use?

What have we accomplished?
Aug 14 2008
parent reply Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com> writes:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:

 
 Slightly OT, and directed at this whole situation: I just sit back and 
 laugh.  *This* is open-source software?  *This* is the supposed "freedom" 
 and "openness" that the whole movement is about?  People bickering for a 
 _year_ over minutiae of licenses which are supposed to promote free use?
 
 What have we accomplished? 
 
 


Someone once told me that the place with the most politics is academia.
the professors have so little decision power that they argue (intensely)
about the smallest and stupidest of things.
I guess you can say the same thing here: all the code is "open" and
therefore everyone argues about the smallest details left to argue about
like  who's name is written on the copyright (and in what order) and
stuff like that. besides, how can a person steal free code?!

the problem with OSS is that it's free. if it where closed than it would
be a matter of the amount of money which can be negotiated and agree upon.
OSS is free therefore the only thing that matters is one's pride and
that cannot be negotiated.


In this Specific case:
Walter needs his name on all the Phobos code and he stated his valid
reasons for it. Tango developers want their names on the Tango code and
rightly so, since they wrote it. in case of a merger of those two code
bases you get one joint code base but *two* teams that want their name
on the code. someone has to be first.

all I can say is that I hope this gets resolved soon for the benefit of
everyone here.
Aug 14 2008
next sibling parent Dee Girl <deegirl noreply.com> writes:
Yigal Chripun Wrote:


 Jarrett Billingsley wrote:

 
 Slightly OT, and directed at this whole situation: I just sit back and 
 laugh.  *This* is open-source software?  *This* is the supposed "freedom" 
 and "openness" that the whole movement is about?  People bickering for a 
 _year_ over minutiae of licenses which are supposed to promote free use?
 
 What have we accomplished? 
 
 


 
 Someone once told me that the place with the most politics is academia.
 the professors have so little decision power that they argue (intensely)
 about the smallest and stupidest of things.
 I guess you can say the same thing here: all the code is "open" and
 therefore everyone argues about the smallest details left to argue about
 like  who's name is written on the copyright (and in what order) and
 stuff like that. besides, how can a person steal free code?!
 
 the problem with OSS is that it's free. if it where closed than it would
 be a matter of the amount of money which can be negotiated and agree upon.
 OSS is free therefore the only thing that matters is one's pride and
 that cannot be negotiated.
 
 
 In this Specific case:
 Walter needs his name on all the Phobos code and he stated his valid
 reasons for it. Tango developers want their names on the Tango code and
 rightly so, since they wrote it. in case of a merger of those two code
 bases you get one joint code base but *two* teams that want their name
 on the code. someone has to be first.
 
 all I can say is that I hope this gets resolved soon for the benefit of
 everyone here.


I do not know any thing about this. I am sorry if this does not help. I have
algorithm.d open in my editor. I see this

 *  Copyright (C) 2004-2006 by Digital Mars, www.digitalmars.com
 *  Written by Andrei Alexandrescu, www.erdani.org

Maybe it is because Andrei works for Digital Mars also? I do not know. What I
see is Walter name is not in this file at all. If this is mistake please
ignore. Thank you, Dee Girl
Aug 14 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent superdan <super dan.org> writes:
Yigal Chripun Wrote:


 Jarrett Billingsley wrote:

 
 Slightly OT, and directed at this whole situation: I just sit back and 
 laugh.  *This* is open-source software?  *This* is the supposed "freedom" 
 and "openness" that the whole movement is about?  People bickering for a 
 _year_ over minutiae of licenses which are supposed to promote free use?
 
 What have we accomplished? 
 
 


 
 Someone once told me that the place with the most politics is academia.
 the professors have so little decision power that they argue (intensely)
 about the smallest and stupidest of things.
 I guess you can say the same thing here: all the code is "open" and
 therefore everyone argues about the smallest details left to argue about
 like  who's name is written on the copyright (and in what order) and
 stuff like that. besides, how can a person steal free code?!


intercourse yeah. applies to any place with low stakes. the lower the stakes
the weirder the contest.

when i worked for intel i visited their facilities in india. long story. so
there's these two young brothers heading the office in b'lore. i got to hang
out with them for a while. they were first generation in their family to ever
wear shoes and prolly their kids would be the first generation to not shit in
the street. and they was rich by indian std. now each dood drove a mercedes
from intel as a work perk. they didn't own the cars. that's how it works there.
identical so far as i could tell. and after a month on indian roads all cars
look the same. but i digress. so i get them a bit drunk (easy but i digress
again) and their insecurities come fore. guess what was their problem. one said
his merc is longer than his brothers'. the morons really start to quarrel.
finally they get to the parking lot and start drawing signs in the dirt and
measure stuff. i kid you not. one actually does win by 3cm. must've been diff
in the bumper n mask paraphernalia. the other's pissed. it was priceless. i
should've shot the whole thing on tape.


 the problem with OSS is that it's free. if it where closed than it would
 be a matter of the amount of money which can be negotiated and agree upon.
 OSS is free therefore the only thing that matters is one's pride and
 that cannot be negotiated.
 
 
 In this Specific case:
 Walter needs his name on all the Phobos code and he stated his valid
 reasons for it. Tango developers want their names on the Tango code and
 rightly so, since they wrote it. in case of a merger of those two code
 bases you get one joint code base but *two* teams that want their name
 on the code. someone has to be first.
 
 all I can say is that I hope this gets resolved soon for the benefit of
 everyone here.


still tryin' to figure what interests are at play here. who cares about what?
and who wants what? no idea. not holding my breath on resolving. they've been
at it for a year.
Aug 14 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Sean Reque <seanthenewt yahoo.com> writes:
Yigal Chripun Wrote:


 Jarrett Billingsley wrote:

 
 Slightly OT, and directed at this whole situation: I just sit back and 
 laugh.  *This* is open-source software?  *This* is the supposed "freedom" 
 and "openness" that the whole movement is about?  People bickering for a 
 _year_ over minutiae of licenses which are supposed to promote free use?
 
 What have we accomplished? 
 
 


 
 Someone once told me that the place with the most politics is academia.
 the professors have so little decision power that they argue (intensely)
 about the smallest and stupidest of things.
 I guess you can say the same thing here: all the code is "open" and
 therefore everyone argues about the smallest details left to argue about
 like  who's name is written on the copyright (and in what order) and
 stuff like that. besides, how can a person steal free code?!
 
 the problem with OSS is that it's free. if it where closed than it would
 be a matter of the amount of money which can be negotiated and agree upon.
 OSS is free therefore the only thing that matters is one's pride and
 that cannot be negotiated.
 
 
 In this Specific case:
 Walter needs his name on all the Phobos code and he stated his valid
 reasons for it. Tango developers want their names on the Tango code and
 rightly so, since they wrote it. in case of a merger of those two code
 bases you get one joint code base but *two* teams that want their name
 on the code. someone has to be first.
 
 all I can say is that I hope this gets resolved soon for the benefit of
 everyone here.


If I understand correctly, this is an issue not for political reasons, but for
legal and economic ones. Digital Mars as a company has to convince the
corporate world that they can use the D tools offered without any legal
ramifications. I do not see where pride is involved at all, at least on
Walter's side. He said he has already given the Tango developers license to use
re-license (Phobos?) code how they see fit, and is waiting for the same
permission in return.

Sean Reque
Aug 14 2008
parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
"Sean Reque" wrote

 Yigal Chripun Wrote:


 Jarrett Billingsley wrote:

 Slightly OT, and directed at this whole situation: I just sit back and
 laugh.  *This* is open-source software?  *This* is the supposed 
 "freedom"
 and "openness" that the whole movement is about?  People bickering for 
 a
 _year_ over minutiae of licenses which are supposed to promote free 
 use?

 What have we accomplished?


 Someone once told me that the place with the most politics is academia.
 the professors have so little decision power that they argue (intensely)
 about the smallest and stupidest of things.
 I guess you can say the same thing here: all the code is "open" and
 therefore everyone argues about the smallest details left to argue about
 like  who's name is written on the copyright (and in what order) and
 stuff like that. besides, how can a person steal free code?!

 the problem with OSS is that it's free. if it where closed than it would
 be a matter of the amount of money which can be negotiated and agree 
 upon.
 OSS is free therefore the only thing that matters is one's pride and
 that cannot be negotiated.


 In this Specific case:
 Walter needs his name on all the Phobos code and he stated his valid
 reasons for it. Tango developers want their names on the Tango code and
 rightly so, since they wrote it. in case of a merger of those two code
 bases you get one joint code base but *two* teams that want their name
 on the code. someone has to be first.

 all I can say is that I hope this gets resolved soon for the benefit of
 everyone here.


 If I understand correctly, this is an issue not for political reasons, but 
 for legal and economic ones. Digital Mars as a company has to convince the 
 corporate world that they can use the D tools offered without any legal 
 ramifications. I do not see where pride is involved at all, at least on 
 Walter's side. He said he has already given the Tango developers license 
 to use re-license (Phobos?) code how they see fit, and is waiting for the 
 same permission in return.


I don't know the details of the license that Walter gave to the Tango devs, 
but according to Phobos' license, no explicit permission is needed as long 
as you obey the license terms (which is pretty free in its terms), and in 
fact, Tango has the Phobos license in the runtime anyways, and obeys the 
license that ships with Phobos.  So I don't see how it is relevant that 
Walter gave a specific license to Tango, it was not required (at least 
that's my understanding).  It should be the same thing for Walter to accept 
Tango's modified version of the runtime (just include a copy of Tango's 
license).  My understanding is that Walter is against doing that for the 
purpose of avoiding having 2 licenses in phobos.  Both licenses are very 
similar, and completely compatible.  I see that Walter doesn't like it, but 
I don't see why it is a problem?  Perhaps you could elaborate more, Walter.

Also, I would like to know specifically what Walter needs from the Tango 
team.  What could it be that he needs that the Tango team is against?

-Steve
Aug 14 2008
next sibling parent Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 "Sean Reque" wrote

 Yigal Chripun Wrote:


 Jarrett Billingsley wrote:

 Slightly OT, and directed at this whole situation: I just sit back and
 laugh.  *This* is open-source software?  *This* is the supposed 
 "freedom"
 and "openness" that the whole movement is about?  People bickering for 
 a
 _year_ over minutiae of licenses which are supposed to promote free 
 use?

 What have we accomplished?


 Someone once told me that the place with the most politics is academia.
 the professors have so little decision power that they argue (intensely)
 about the smallest and stupidest of things.
 I guess you can say the same thing here: all the code is "open" and
 therefore everyone argues about the smallest details left to argue about
 like  who's name is written on the copyright (and in what order) and
 stuff like that. besides, how can a person steal free code?!

 the problem with OSS is that it's free. if it where closed than it would
 be a matter of the amount of money which can be negotiated and agree 
 upon.
 OSS is free therefore the only thing that matters is one's pride and
 that cannot be negotiated.


 In this Specific case:
 Walter needs his name on all the Phobos code and he stated his valid
 reasons for it. Tango developers want their names on the Tango code and
 rightly so, since they wrote it. in case of a merger of those two code
 bases you get one joint code base but *two* teams that want their name
 on the code. someone has to be first.

 all I can say is that I hope this gets resolved soon for the benefit of
 everyone here.


 If I understand correctly, this is an issue not for political reasons, but 
 for legal and economic ones. Digital Mars as a company has to convince the 
 corporate world that they can use the D tools offered without any legal 
 ramifications. I do not see where pride is involved at all, at least on 
 Walter's side. He said he has already given the Tango developers license 
 to use re-license (Phobos?) code how they see fit, and is waiting for the 
 same permission in return.


 
 I don't know the details of the license that Walter gave to the Tango devs, 
 but according to Phobos' license, no explicit permission is needed as long 
 as you obey the license terms (which is pretty free in its terms)


Walter has been updating to the PD license in modules when has has some 
reason to modify them for code changes, so many modules retained a BSD 
license until recently (in fact, I think some still may).  One of the 
first things I did with Tango was to try and normalize the license 
documentation in the runtime to make things easier to deal with. 
Fortunately, since Tango is dual licensed under BSD it was easy enough 
to use a common license for everything and make sure that Walter was 
listed as the copyright owner.  I don't actually recall offhand if the 
modules are still BSD only or dual-licensed, but since Walter has given 
us rights to the code I suppose it no longer matters--with it, the 
artistic license should no longer conflict with any lingering BSD 
license requirements in Phobos.


Sean
Aug 14 2008
prev sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 I don't know the details of the license that Walter gave to the Tango devs, 


It's as I posted here. Tango may use any part of Phobos and *relicense* 
it under the Tango license that I have the power to do.


 but according to Phobos' license, no explicit permission is needed as long 
 as you obey the license terms (which is pretty free in its terms), and in 
 fact, Tango has the Phobos license in the runtime anyways, and obeys the 
 license that ships with Phobos.  So I don't see how it is relevant that 
 Walter gave a specific license to Tango, it was not required (at least 
 that's my understanding).  It should be the same thing for Walter to accept 
 Tango's modified version of the runtime (just include a copy of Tango's 
 license).  My understanding is that Walter is against doing that for the 
 purpose of avoiding having 2 licenses in phobos.  Both licenses are very 
 similar, and completely compatible.  I see that Walter doesn't like it, but 
 I don't see why it is a problem?  Perhaps you could elaborate more, Walter.


I don't know what more needs to be elaborated. There are two reasons for 
this:

1. To ensure Phobos is free of any legal taint and any accusations of 
stealing code.

2. To avoid the untenable issue of a single module in Phobos having 
different license for different lines of code.


 Also, I would like to know specifically what Walter needs from the Tango 
 team.  What could it be that he needs that the Tango team is against?


What specifically I'd like from the Tango team is explicit permission 
for the Phobos team to go over the Tango code and be able to copy/use 
whatever portions of it are necessary to get the two libraries to have a 
compatible core, and to relicense those parts under the corresponding 
Phobos license.

I have already provided a reciprocal agreement for the Tango team to use 
Phobos.
Aug 14 2008
next sibling parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
"Walter Bright" wrote

 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 I don't know the details of the license that Walter gave to the Tango 
 devs,


 It's as I posted here. Tango may use any part of Phobos and *relicense* it 
 under the Tango license that I have the power to do.


 but according to Phobos' license, no explicit permission is needed as 
 long as you obey the license terms (which is pretty free in its terms), 
 and in fact, Tango has the Phobos license in the runtime anyways, and 
 obeys the license that ships with Phobos.  So I don't see how it is 
 relevant that Walter gave a specific license to Tango, it was not 
 required (at least that's my understanding).  It should be the same thing 
 for Walter to accept Tango's modified version of the runtime (just 
 include a copy of Tango's license).  My understanding is that Walter is 
 against doing that for the purpose of avoiding having 2 licenses in 
 phobos.  Both licenses are very similar, and completely compatible.  I 
 see that Walter doesn't like it, but I don't see why it is a problem? 
 Perhaps you could elaborate more, Walter.


 I don't know what more needs to be elaborated. There are two reasons for 
 this:

 1. To ensure Phobos is free of any legal taint and any accusations of 
 stealing code.


Easy.  Don't say you wrote the Tango portions :)  Both Tango and Phobos are 
well established, it is not like you are starting from scratch, and 
especially, both are maintained in SVN on a third-party site, so it is easy 
to see who wrote what when.  I think you need to give a little on this...


 2. To avoid the untenable issue of a single module in Phobos having 
 different license for different lines of code.


Different *lines* of code?  There is no reason to do that.  Keep the license 
per module.  If you make changes in a module that was licensed under Tango 
only, leave the license there.  From my understanding, any code that Tango 
used from Phobos still has the original license that Phobos provided.  I 
don't see a problem with that model.


 Also, I would like to know specifically what Walter needs from the Tango 
 team.  What could it be that he needs that the Tango team is against?


 What specifically I'd like from the Tango team is explicit permission for 
 the Phobos team to go over the Tango code and be able to copy/use whatever 
 portions of it are necessary to get the two libraries to have a compatible 
 core, and to relicense those parts under the corresponding Phobos license.


What is wrong with giving you permission to go over a given list of files 
that are specifically owned by people who don't mind you using their code? 
This should be adequate for creating a common core, as the core modules are 
well separated from the user portions.  And why must they be relicensed?  I 
don't really understand that part (but from Sean's messages, it looks like 
you already have that permission).

What if someone gathered all the appropriate files together in a single 
package, and had the Tango developers sign off that Sean was the sole owner 
of the files in that package?  Would that be enough?


 I have already provided a reciprocal agreement for the Tango team to use 
 Phobos.


Again, if this is the case, it was not used, because all of the 
Phobos-originated code (that I looked at anyways) still is licensed under 
the Phobos license.

-Steve
Aug 14 2008
parent reply Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 "Walter Bright" wrote

 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:


 

 Also, I would like to know specifically what Walter needs from the Tango 
 team.  What could it be that he needs that the Tango team is against?


 What specifically I'd like from the Tango team is explicit permission for 
 the Phobos team to go over the Tango code and be able to copy/use whatever 
 portions of it are necessary to get the two libraries to have a compatible 
 core, and to relicense those parts under the corresponding Phobos license.


 
 What is wrong with giving you permission to go over a given list of files 
 that are specifically owned by people who don't mind you using their code? 
 This should be adequate for creating a common core, as the core modules are 
 well separated from the user portions.  And why must they be relicensed?  I 
 don't really understand that part (but from Sean's messages, it looks like 
 you already have that permission).


I believe the issue is fear of "taint."  In short, if Walter so much as 
glances at a module and it turns out that one of the authors isn't 
someone who has licensed his code to Walter then he could later accuse 
Walter of violating his copyright simply because something in Walters 
code looked vaguely similar.  It's why Walter has never looked at GDC, 
for example, since he is in the business of writing compilers. 
Personally, I think copyright law is utterly ridiculous, but what can 
you do.


 What if someone gathered all the appropriate files together in a single 
 package, and had the Tango developers sign off that Sean was the sole owner 
 of the files in that package?  Would that be enough?


I actually send Walter a bundled copy of the Tango runtime years ago for 
just this reason, and didn't realize that Walter had never looked at it 
until probably a year later when Walter said he'd never looked at Tango 
at all.


Sean
Aug 14 2008
parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
"Sean Kelly" wrote

 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 "Walter Bright" wrote

 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:



 Also, I would like to know specifically what Walter needs from the 
 Tango team.  What could it be that he needs that the Tango team is 
 against?


 What specifically I'd like from the Tango team is explicit permission 
 for the Phobos team to go over the Tango code and be able to copy/use 
 whatever portions of it are necessary to get the two libraries to have a 
 compatible core, and to relicense those parts under the corresponding 
 Phobos license.


 What is wrong with giving you permission to go over a given list of files 
 that are specifically owned by people who don't mind you using their 
 code? This should be adequate for creating a common core, as the core 
 modules are well separated from the user portions.  And why must they be 
 relicensed?  I don't really understand that part (but from Sean's 
 messages, it looks like you already have that permission).


 I believe the issue is fear of "taint."  In short, if Walter so much as 
 glances at a module and it turns out that one of the authors isn't someone 
 who has licensed his code to Walter then he could later accuse Walter of 
 violating his copyright simply because something in Walters code looked 
 vaguely similar.  It's why Walter has never looked at GDC, for example, 
 since he is in the business of writing compilers. Personally, I think 
 copyright law is utterly ridiculous, but what can you do.


Copyright law is not that rediculous (aside from the US DMCA).  Looking at 
code and then writing something that uses the same ideas as the code is not 
a copyright violation.  Possibly a patent violation, but that is only if 
your country has software patents (which, sadly, mine does), and you are not 
protected from patent infringements even if you *don't* look at the code. 
You don't copyright the ideas, you copyright the literal text of the code 
itself (and the exact bytes of the binary).

But in this instance, you WANT the code to be identical because you want it 
to be compatible.  Yet there should be no issue because the code is open 
source.  Many many companies use open source software and have no problems 
because they attribute credit where credit is due.  This should be no 
different.

Not looking at the Tango runtime source because some random contributor who 
has nothing to do with Tango's runtime might try to sue Walter (for what, I 
can't imagine), is sort of like not ever trying to walk for fear you might 
fall down and break an arm.  I think, after reading all this stuff, that 
Tango has minimalized the risk to a very tiny reasonable level, and it is up 
to Walter to take the steps to actually make the change possible.

The only further right that Walter gains with having Tango code in the 
public domain is to claim credit for their work.  So I tend to agree with 
those who don't want their code released as PD.

-Steve
Aug 14 2008
next sibling parent Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
== Quote from Steven Schveighoffer (schveiguy yahoo.com)'s article

 "Sean Kelly" wrote

 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 "Walter Bright" wrote

 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:



 Also, I would like to know specifically what Walter needs from the
 Tango team.  What could it be that he needs that the Tango team is
 against?


 What specifically I'd like from the Tango team is explicit permission
 for the Phobos team to go over the Tango code and be able to copy/use
 whatever portions of it are necessary to get the two libraries to have a
 compatible core, and to relicense those parts under the corresponding
 Phobos license.


 What is wrong with giving you permission to go over a given list of files
 that are specifically owned by people who don't mind you using their
 code? This should be adequate for creating a common core, as the core
 modules are well separated from the user portions.  And why must they be
 relicensed?  I don't really understand that part (but from Sean's
 messages, it looks like you already have that permission).


 I believe the issue is fear of "taint."  In short, if Walter so much as
 glances at a module and it turns out that one of the authors isn't someone
 who has licensed his code to Walter then he could later accuse Walter of
 violating his copyright simply because something in Walters code looked
 vaguely similar.  It's why Walter has never looked at GDC, for example,
 since he is in the business of writing compilers. Personally, I think
 copyright law is utterly ridiculous, but what can you do.


 Copyright law is not that rediculous (aside from the US DMCA).  Looking at
 code and then writing something that uses the same ideas as the code is not
 a copyright violation.  Possibly a patent violation, but that is only if
 your country has software patents (which, sadly, mine does), and you are not
 protected from patent infringements even if you *don't* look at the code.
 You don't copyright the ideas, you copyright the literal text of the code
 itself (and the exact bytes of the binary).
 But in this instance, you WANT the code to be identical because you want it
 to be compatible.  Yet there should be no issue because the code is open
 source.  Many many companies use open source software and have no problems
 because they attribute credit where credit is due.  This should be no
 different.
 Not looking at the Tango runtime source because some random contributor who
 has nothing to do with Tango's runtime might try to sue Walter (for what, I
 can't imagine), is sort of like not ever trying to walk for fear you might
 fall down and break an arm.  I think, after reading all this stuff, that
 Tango has minimalized the risk to a very tiny reasonable level, and it is up
 to Walter to take the steps to actually make the change possible.
 The only further right that Walter gains with having Tango code in the
 public domain is to claim credit for their work.  So I tend to agree with
 those who don't want their code released as PD.


For what it's worth, if having compatible runtimes is the only issue then I do
maintain a "standard" of sorts that outlines the public interfaces the runtime
libraries must provide:

http://dsource.org/projects/tango/wiki/LibraryIntegrationGuide

I've mentioned this to Walter et al. in the past, but no one seemed interested.
Can't say I understand the reasoning, but what can you do.


Sean
Aug 14 2008
prev sibling parent reply Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com> writes:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 Copyright law is not that rediculous (aside from the US DMCA).


US DMCA is not only ridiculous but also illegal since it violates the US
 constitution. Sadly, I don't see any public outcry against this and
other laws like eavesdropping without a court order and other violations
of basic rights as written in the constitution. Should I care for this
really sad situation in which "the greatest democracy" is in?
unfortunately the answer is yes because the US government influences and
puts pressure on other countries to adjust to their view and thus
indirectly influences our local laws.
This is evident in the raid on the pirate bay's servers which was
illegal according to local law and was done due to pressure from the US
administration.
our local copyright law was recently changed to be more like the US one,
 due to similar reasons.
Aug 14 2008
parent reply Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight gmail.com> writes:
Yigal Chripun Wrote:


 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
  > Copyright law is not that rediculous (aside from the US DMCA).
 US DMCA is not only ridiculous but also illegal since it violates the US
  constitution. Sadly, I don't see any public outcry against this and
 other laws like eavesdropping without a court order and other violations
 of basic rights as written in the constitution. Should I care for this
 really sad situation in which "the greatest democracy" is in?
 unfortunately the answer is yes because the US government influences and
 puts pressure on other countries to adjust to their view and thus
 indirectly influences our local laws.
 This is evident in the raid on the pirate bay's servers which was
 illegal according to local law and was done due to pressure from the US
 administration.
 our local copyright law was recently changed to be more like the US one,
  due to similar reasons.



I've had very mixed feelings about all this. One one hand, the letter of the
law may be questionably constitutional. But millions of dollars every day are
lost because people (including myself occasionally...) steal copyrighted
material. Honestly, I think there should be much stricter penalties for
things like internet piracy, because it's simply so widespread and damaging.
Aug 14 2008
parent reply Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com> writes:
Robert Fraser wrote:

 I've had very mixed feelings about all this. One one hand, the letter


of the

 law may be questionably constitutional. But millions of dollars every day are
 lost because people (including myself occasionally...) steal copyrighted
 material. Honestly, I think there should be much stricter penalties for
 things like internet piracy, because it's simply so widespread and damaging.


Of course you have the right to have your own opinion (that's also in
the constitution) but all of the above is bullshit. (sorry for the
language).

stealing only applies to physical things like chairs and cars. that
whole metaphor of information as physical entities is wrong.
you sure can infringe someone's copyrights but you cannot steal anything
since there's nothing to steal.

Now that we cleared that out of the way, let's touch other nonsenses in
what you wrote:

A) "millions of dollars every day are lost..." - Not true. you assume
that if a person doesn't pirate he would have payed for the stuff. this
is a wrong assumption since the majority of people would just use other
alternatives. if I wouldn't be able to pirate MS office I'd probably
search for a cheap commercial solution or install Open Office which is
good enough for me and most other private people and small companies. no
one in their right mind would pay 500$ for an office suit. think
globally: in US standards paying for software is not that expensive and
is convenient (and you pay for that as well) but for most of the world
those prices are high. in Israel 500$ translates to roughly 2000 NIS
which is a lot.
B)"it's simply so ... damaging" - not so.
If you look at music and films than the image is backwards: since it's
easy to pirate I can download a lot of stuff try it out and only keep
what I like. If I like it I'll tell friends and more people will be
exposed to the content. pirating actually makes money for the copyright
holder and helps him get recognized since it's advertising they don't
need to pay for.
If what you said was true than Red Hat and Novel wouldn't lasted more
than a day. after all you can legally download their products from their
 respective websites!

The issue is not whether piracy is moral or not. it's a fact of life -
the internet provides an efficient means for distribution of
information. either you take advantage of it or you insist on your old
irrelevant business model and go extinct. business 101 - "The customer
is always right." the moment they (RIAA, MPAA, etc..) broke that rule
because they refused to evolve with respect to new technology and
business models is the moment they signed their death warrants.

I prefer supporting music artists by going to a concert and paying 100$
for a ticket rather than paying for CDs with shitty music the records
companies advertise and try to stick in my throat.

one last thing, before suggesting more penalties and such please read
the following: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
*after* reading this, are you sure still that this is the way to go?
Aug 14 2008
parent reply Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight gmail.com> writes:
Yigal Chripun Wrote:


 Robert Fraser wrote:
  > I've had very mixed feelings about all this. One one hand, the letter
 of the

 law may be questionably constitutional. But millions of dollars every day are
 lost because people (including myself occasionally...) steal copyrighted
 material. Honestly, I think there should be much stricter penalties for
 things like internet piracy, because it's simply so widespread and damaging.


 
 Of course you have the right to have your own opinion (that's also in
 the constitution) but all of the above is bullshit. (sorry for the
 language).
 
 stealing only applies to physical things like chairs and cars. that
 whole metaphor of information as physical entities is wrong.
 you sure can infringe someone's copyrights but you cannot steal anything
 since there's nothing to steal.


Some philosopher said that all philosophical debates were inherently
linguistic ones that stemmed from not having the words to represent the
concepts being spoken about. We're using different definitions of "steal,"
but the concept is clear -- it's taking something you don't have the right
to have taken without paying for, and the debate is over whether you do
or should have that right.


 Now that we cleared that out of the way, let's touch other nonsenses in
 what you wrote:
 
 A) "millions of dollars every day are lost..." - Not true. you assume
 that if a person doesn't pirate he would have payed for the stuff. this
 is a wrong assumption since the majority of people would just use other
 alternatives.


Sure not everyone would have paid. But at least one person would have
paid. Back in high school, I would have paid for a lot of the music I
downloaded (perhaps not all of it) -- but I didn't since it was so easy for 
me to pirate it. The statement is that piracy costs at least $1 million/day in
LOST SALES; if you would have used a free alternative, that's not factored
into the argument.


 if I wouldn't be able to pirate MS office 


Mah paycheck!!! (that's paying me to post on D NGs...)


 I'd probably
 search for a cheap commercial solution or install Open Office which is
 good enough for me and most other private people and small companies. no
 one in their right mind would pay 500$ for an office suit. think
 globally: in US standards paying for software is not that expensive and
 is convenient (and you pay for that as well) but for most of the world
 those prices are high. in Israel 500$ translates to roughly 2000 NIS
 which is a lot.
 B)"it's simply so ... damaging" - not so.
 If you look at music and films than the image is backwards: since it's
 easy to pirate I can download a lot of stuff try it out and only keep
 what I like. If I like it I'll tell friends and more people will be
 exposed to the content. pirating actually makes money for the copyright
 holder and helps him get recognized since it's advertising they don't
 need to pay for.


I'm going to cry bull**** here. Quite a few sites offer legit free music/
video. The content creators/producers have made this available for
precisely the reason you said -- so people view it and tell their friends or
choose to buy higher-quality versions of it. The stuff they DON'T make
available for free is not there because it is more profitable for them not
to make it available. The creators/producers choose what to share for free
 -- NOT the consumers.


 If what you said was true than Red Hat and Novel wouldn't lasted more
 than a day. after all you can legally download their products from their
  respective websites!


Their business model is to make money off the support for
their software, not the software itself.


 The issue is not whether piracy is moral or not. it's a fact of life -
 the internet provides an efficient means for distribution of
 information. either you take advantage of it or you insist on your old
 irrelevant business model and go extinct. 


Selling software/music/video/intellectual property for money is an extinct
business model...? If that's your argument then o_O.


 business 101 - "The customer
 is always right." the moment they (RIAA, MPAA, etc..) broke that rule
 because they refused to evolve with respect to new technology and
 business models is the moment they signed their death warrants.
 
 I prefer supporting music artists by going to a concert and paying 100$
 for a ticket rather than paying for CDs with shitty music the records
 companies advertise and try to stick in my throat.
 
 one last thing, before suggesting more penalties and such please read
 the following: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
 *after* reading this, are you sure still that this is the way to go?


I think what a lot of these arguments boil down to is people trying to
justify taking stuff without paying for it. Plain and simple. I do on occasion
download videos (these days only anime fansubs).  And I don't feel bad
about it. But I do know it's stealing. Downloading a $10 CD is really
no better than shoplifting a $10 CD, because the people who worked to
bring that CD into existence are not being paid for it.
Aug 14 2008
next sibling parent reply Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com> writes:
Warning: this can turn into a long debate...

Robert Fraser wrote:

 Yigal Chripun Wrote:
 

 Robert Fraser wrote:
  > I've had very mixed feelings about all this. One one hand, the letter
 of the

 law may be questionably constitutional. But millions of dollars every day are
 lost because people (including myself occasionally...) steal copyrighted
 material. Honestly, I think there should be much stricter penalties for
 things like internet piracy, because it's simply so widespread and damaging.


 Of course you have the right to have your own opinion (that's also in
 the constitution) but all of the above is bullshit. (sorry for the
 language).

 stealing only applies to physical things like chairs and cars. that
 whole metaphor of information as physical entities is wrong.
 you sure can infringe someone's copyrights but you cannot steal anything
 since there's nothing to steal.


 
 Some philosopher said that all philosophical debates were inherently
 linguistic ones that stemmed from not having the words to represent the
 concepts being spoken about. We're using different definitions of "steal,"
 but the concept is clear -- it's taking something you don't have the right
 to have taken without paying for, and the debate is over whether you do
 or should have that right.


I won't argue about wording and linguistics with you. this would be just
silly. I'll simply agree that my definition of what stilling is differs
from yours. I do disagree on one thing though: everything in life is a
balance and a compromise. Democracy is a compromise between the rights
of the individual and that of the community he belongs to, for one
example. this notion of compromise is inherit in our discussion as well:
on the one hand we have the right of the content creator to do what he
wants with his creation and on the other hand we have the right of the
public to access that creation.
So we disagree on where the balance lies. However, please do not claim
"it's taking something you don't have the right to have taken" since
that right is also is present.


 

 Now that we cleared that out of the way, let's touch other nonsenses in
 what you wrote:

 A) "millions of dollars every day are lost..." - Not true. you assume
 that if a person doesn't pirate he would have payed for the stuff. this
 is a wrong assumption since the majority of people would just use other
 alternatives.


 
 Sure not everyone would have paid. But at least one person would have
 paid. Back in high school, I would have paid for a lot of the music I
 downloaded (perhaps not all of it) -- but I didn't since it was so easy for 
 me to pirate it. The statement is that piracy costs at least $1 million/day in
 LOST SALES; if you would have used a free alternative, that's not factored
 into the argument.


Hence, that statement is flawed since the vast majority of people would
*NOT* have bought the content in question.

 

 if I wouldn't be able to pirate MS office 


 
 Mah paycheck!!! (that's paying me to post on D NGs...)
 

 I'd probably
 search for a cheap commercial solution or install Open Office which is
 good enough for me and most other private people and small companies. no
 one in their right mind would pay 500$ for an office suit. think
 globally: in US standards paying for software is not that expensive and
 is convenient (and you pay for that as well) but for most of the world
 those prices are high. in Israel 500$ translates to roughly 2000 NIS
 which is a lot.
 B)"it's simply so ... damaging" - not so.
 If you look at music and films than the image is backwards: since it's
 easy to pirate I can download a lot of stuff try it out and only keep
 what I like. If I like it I'll tell friends and more people will be
 exposed to the content. pirating actually makes money for the copyright
 holder and helps him get recognized since it's advertising they don't
 need to pay for.


 
 I'm going to cry bull**** here. Quite a few sites offer legit free music/
 video. The content creators/producers have made this available for
 precisely the reason you said -- so people view it and tell their friends or
 choose to buy higher-quality versions of it. The stuff they DON'T make
 available for free is not there because it is more profitable for them not
 to make it available. The creators/producers choose what to share for free
  -- NOT the consumers.
 


As I said above, it's all a matter of balance:
people are willing to pay for the _convenience_ of being able to
download music online in good [lossless probably] quality. people are
also willing to buy merchandise to support their favorite artist and of
course, people are willing to pay to attend a concert/performance/etc of
the artist. Those are all logical business models. however, people
*aren't* willing to pay for the /right/ to download music.

Where's the balance? simple - The record companies where selling us a
cat in the bag for years and demanding us to pay again {and a larger sum
at that] each time they switch formats. That's unacceptable to me. I am
willing to pay for the convenience of an online service if that service
was in fact convenient and I could get a feeling what I'm paying for.
This does not mean DRM [this is finally dawned upon the companies]. A
consumer expects that just like when he buys a car where he can drive it
on what ever road he wants, the same would happen with the music.
Since Apple allow for non-drm music in itunes - this is the last thing
that needs to change in order for me to buy my music there. (also, I
think the price is a bit high but that's just a matter of pricing which
is solved by market forces)

As soon as those online service evolve into something that is really
convenient there will be no reason for the average user to want to
pirate. pirating will never completely disappear but they'll be a minor
thing.



 If what you said was true than Red Hat and Novel wouldn't lasted more
 than a day. after all you can legally download their products from their
  respective websites!


 
 Their business model is to make money off the support for
 their software, not the software itself.


exactly. just one of the million posibilities of viable business models
that do not equate the consumer and end user of the product to thieves,
pirates and sinners in general.


 

 The issue is not whether piracy is moral or not. it's a fact of life -
 the internet provides an efficient means for distribution of
 information. either you take advantage of it or you insist on your old
 irrelevant business model and go extinct. 


 
 Selling software/music/video/intellectual property for money is an extinct
 business model...? If that's your argument then o_O.


That's partly my argument. When was the last time you used a telegraph?
That technology was replaced be better technologies. So what what about
all those people that where trained with Morse code and telegraph
equipment? Should the government force us to use telegraphs in order for
them to keep their jobs? What about silent film actors? today actors are
required to be able to speak properly as part of their profession, So
what about all those actors that cannot speak properly? There are of
course more examples where a new technology deprecated some profession
or job. Same goes for all the jobs at record companies - they are
unneeded and the record company itself is redundant in a world where the
artist can create he's work alone and reach his audience directly via
the web.


 

 business 101 - "The customer
 is always right." the moment they (RIAA, MPAA, etc..) broke that rule
 because they refused to evolve with respect to new technology and
 business models is the moment they signed their death warrants.

 I prefer supporting music artists by going to a concert and paying 100$
 for a ticket rather than paying for CDs with shitty music the records
 companies advertise and try to stick in my throat.

 one last thing, before suggesting more penalties and such please read
 the following: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
 *after* reading this, are you sure still that this is the way to go?


 
 I think what a lot of these arguments boil down to is people trying to
 justify taking stuff without paying for it. Plain and simple. I do on occasion
 download videos (these days only anime fansubs).  And I don't feel bad
 about it. But I do know it's stealing. Downloading a $10 CD is really
 no better than shoplifting a $10 CD, because the people who worked to
 bring that CD into existence are not being paid for it.
Aug 14 2008
next sibling parent Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight gmail.com> writes:
Yigal Chripun wrote:

 Warning: this can turn into a long debate...


Eh; I'm enjoying it ;-P. Gives a good break from Windows Forms.


 Democracy is a compromise between the rights
 of the individual and that of the community he belongs to, for one
 example. this notion of compromise is inherit in our discussion as well:
 on the one hand we have the right of the content creator to do what he
 wants with his creation and on the other hand we have the right of the
 public to access that creation.


Indeed, the discussion is about that right.


 A) "millions of dollars every day are lost..." - Not true. you assume
 that if a person doesn't pirate he would have payed for the stuff. this
 is a wrong assumption since the majority of people would just use other
 alternatives.


 Sure not everyone would have paid. But at least one person would have
 paid. Back in high school, I would have paid for a lot of the music I
 downloaded (perhaps not all of it) -- but I didn't since it was so easy for 
 me to pirate it. The statement is that piracy costs at least $1 million/day in
 LOST SALES; if you would have used a free alternative, that's not factored
 into the argument.


 
 Hence, that statement is flawed since the vast majority of people would
 *NOT* have bought the content in question.


No, _TAKING INTO ACCOUNT_ that some people would not have gotten the 
content "legally" and some would, I believe there's still over $1 
million/day lost through piracy. Obviously, there's no way to measure this.

Can we agree that there is at least one person who downloaded some 
content and if he had not been able to that he would have BOUGHT the 
content. If so, then there is a lost sale.


 As I said above, it's all a matter of balance:
 people are willing to pay for the _convenience_ of being able to
 download music online in good [lossless probably] quality. people are
 also willing to buy merchandise to support their favorite artist and of
 course, people are willing to pay to attend a concert/performance/etc of
 the artist. Those are all logical business models. however, people
 *aren't* willing to pay for the /right/ to download music.


Right, and that's the problem ;-P. There are also people who will go 
into an electronics store and aren't willing to pay for the right to use 
a certain MP3 player so walk out with it under their shirt.


 Where's the balance? simple - The record companies where selling us a
 cat in the bag for years and demanding us to pay again {and a larger sum
 at that] each time they switch formats. That's unacceptable to me. I am
 willing to pay for the convenience of an online service if that service
 was in fact convenient and I could get a feeling what I'm paying for.
 This does not mean DRM [this is finally dawned upon the companies]. A
 consumer expects that just like when he buys a car where he can drive it
 on what ever road he wants, the same would happen with the music.
 Since Apple allow for non-drm music in itunes - this is the last thing
 that needs to change in order for me to buy my music there. (also, I
 think the price is a bit high but that's just a matter of pricing which
 is solved by market forces)
 As soon as those online service evolve into something that is really
 convenient there will be no reason for the average user to want to
 pirate. pirating will never completely disappear but they'll be a minor
 thing.


 Selling software/music/video/intellectual property for money is an extinct
 business model...? If that's your argument then o_O.


 
 That's partly my argument. When was the last time you used a telegraph?
 That technology was replaced be better technologies. So what what about
 all those people that where trained with Morse code and telegraph
 equipment? Should the government force us to use telegraphs in order for
 them to keep their jobs? What about silent film actors? today actors are
 required to be able to speak properly as part of their profession, So
 what about all those actors that cannot speak properly? There are of
 course more examples where a new technology deprecated some profession
 or job. Same goes for all the jobs at record companies - they are
 unneeded and the record company itself is redundant in a world where the
 artist can create he's work alone and reach his audience directly via
 the web.


There's already good DRM-free music sites (eMusic is one; Zune store is 
about half DRM-free and has an unlimited subscription plan). For video, 
most TV stations in the US provide free streams of their popular shows 
now, and Netflix has a good portion of its content available for 
streaming/instant-viewing. Many games are available for download via 
Direct2Drive, Steam, etc., and most productivity software is now 
licensed online so you never have to even go to the store. All this 
stuff is just as easy as piracy, the difference is you have to pay.

Point: there are many paid alternatives that provide the same quality of 
experience that piracy does. People don't use them because they have to 
pay. Arguing "it's a better experience if you pirate" may have been 
valid 5 years ago, but it's not today.

Anyways, music is a pretty bad example, since most online music sites 
are crap, record companies don't pay artists well, etc., etc. Let's 
restrict our domain to software, since we're both creators of software 
(I'm guessing) and it's our work that's being ripped off. Say you quit 
your day job, took out a loan, and spent two years, 10 hours a day 
developing a Photoshop-killer. Would you think people had the right to 
use it without paying you?
Aug 14 2008
prev sibling parent reply Jesse Phillips <jessekphillips gmail.com> writes:
I'm sorry this just seems like crap logic. I probably will be unhappy 
about going into this but oh well.

On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 05:25:08 +0300, Yigal Chripun wrote:


 Warning: this can turn into a long debate...
 
 Robert Fraser wrote:

 Yigal Chripun Wrote:
 

 Robert Fraser wrote:
  > I've had very mixed feelings about all this. One one hand, the
  > letter
 of the

 law may be questionably constitutional. But millions of dollars every
 day are lost because people (including myself occasionally...) steal
 copyrighted material. Honestly, I think there should be much stricter
 penalties for things like internet piracy, because it's simply so
 widespread and damaging.


 Of course you have the right to have your own opinion (that's also in
 the constitution) but all of the above is bullshit. (sorry for the
 language).

 stealing only applies to physical things like chairs and cars. that
 whole metaphor of information as physical entities is wrong. you sure
 can infringe someone's copyrights but you cannot steal anything since
 there's nothing to steal.


 
 Some philosopher said that all philosophical debates were inherently
 linguistic ones that stemmed from not having the words to represent the
 concepts being spoken about. We're using different definitions of
 "steal," but the concept is clear -- it's taking something you don't
 have the right to have taken without paying for, and the debate is over
 whether you do or should have that right.


 
 I won't argue about wording and linguistics with you. this would be just
 silly. I'll simply agree that my definition of what stilling is differs
 from yours. I do disagree on one thing though: everything in life is a
 balance and a compromise. Democracy is a compromise between the rights
 of the individual and that of the community he belongs to, for one
 example. this notion of compromise is inherit in our discussion as well:
 on the one hand we have the right of the content creator to do what he
 wants with his creation and on the other hand we have the right of the
 public to access that creation.
 So we disagree on where the balance lies. However, please do not claim
 "it's taking something you don't have the right to have taken" since
 that right is also is present.
 


Why does the public have the right to access that creation? I'm sorry, I 
don't think me or Robert would agree with you that when something has 
been created everyone has the right to have access to that creation.


 Now that we cleared that out of the way, let's touch other nonsenses
 in what you wrote:

 A) "millions of dollars every day are lost..." - Not true. you assume
 that if a person doesn't pirate he would have payed for the stuff.
 this is a wrong assumption since the majority of people would just use
 other alternatives.


 
 Sure not everyone would have paid. But at least one person would have
 paid. Back in high school, I would have paid for a lot of the music I
 downloaded (perhaps not all of it) -- but I didn't since it was so easy
 for me to pirate it. The statement is that piracy costs at least $1
 million/day in LOST SALES; if you would have used a free alternative,
 that's not factored into the argument.


 
 Hence, that statement is flawed since the vast majority of people would
 *NOT* have bought the content in question.

 

 if I wouldn't be able to pirate MS office


 
 Mah paycheck!!! (that's paying me to post on D NGs...)
 

 I'd probably
 search for a cheap commercial solution or install Open Office which is
 good enough for me and most other private people and small companies.
 no one in their right mind would pay 500$ for an office suit. think
 globally: in US standards paying for software is not that expensive
 and is convenient (and you pay for that as well) but for most of the
 world those prices are high. in Israel 500$ translates to roughly 2000
 NIS which is a lot.
 B)"it's simply so ... damaging" - not so. If you look at music and
 films than the image is backwards: since it's easy to pirate I can
 download a lot of stuff try it out and only keep what I like. If I
 like it I'll tell friends and more people will be exposed to the
 content. pirating actually makes money for the copyright holder and
 helps him get recognized since it's advertising they don't need to pay
 for.


 
 I'm going to cry bull**** here. Quite a few sites offer legit free
 music/ video. The content creators/producers have made this available
 for precisely the reason you said -- so people view it and tell their
 friends or choose to buy higher-quality versions of it. The stuff they
 DON'T make available for free is not there because it is more
 profitable for them not to make it available. The creators/producers
 choose what to share for free
  -- NOT the consumers.
 
 


 As I said above, it's all a matter of balance: people are willing to pay
 for the _convenience_ of being able to download music online in good
 [lossless probably] quality. people are also willing to buy merchandise
 to support their favorite artist and of course, people are willing to
 pay to attend a concert/performance/etc of the artist. Those are all
 logical business models. however, people *aren't* willing to pay for the
 /right/ to download music.
 
 Where's the balance? simple - The record companies where selling us a
 cat in the bag for years and demanding us to pay again {and a larger sum
 at that] each time they switch formats. That's unacceptable to me. I am
 willing to pay for the convenience of an online service if that service
 was in fact convenient and I could get a feeling what I'm paying for.
 This does not mean DRM [this is finally dawned upon the companies]. A
 consumer expects that just like when he buys a car where he can drive it
 on what ever road he wants, the same would happen with the music. Since
 Apple allow for non-drm music in itunes - this is the last thing that
 needs to change in order for me to buy my music there. (also, I think
 the price is a bit high but that's just a matter of pricing which is
 solved by market forces)
 
 As soon as those online service evolve into something that is really
 convenient there will be no reason for the average user to want to
 pirate. pirating will never completely disappear but they'll be a minor
 thing.
 


Your claim is that most people only pirate for convenience. I can see 
this for some, but I do not see it as a majority. I know people will not 
only buy products the pirate because the like them, but pirate products 
they bought to have more control over them. I realize that helps your 
case and not mine, but I facts are good to have.


 If what you said was true than Red Hat and Novel wouldn't lasted more
 than a day. after all you can legally download their products from
 their
  respective websites!


 
 Their business model is to make money off the support for their
 software, not the software itself.


 
 exactly. just one of the million posibilities of viable business models
 that do not equate the consumer and end user of the product to thieves,
 pirates and sinners in general.


You can sell software/music... and not treat your customers as thieves. 
Your only say that this model makes it impossible for an end-user to 
become one.


 
 

 The issue is not whether piracy is moral or not. it's a fact of life -
 the internet provides an efficient means for distribution of
 information. either you take advantage of it or you insist on your old
 irrelevant business model and go extinct.


 
 Selling software/music/video/intellectual property for money is an
 extinct business model...? If that's your argument then o_O.


 
 That's partly my argument. When was the last time you used a telegraph?
 That technology was replaced be better technologies. So what what about
 all those people that where trained with Morse code and telegraph
 equipment? Should the government force us to use telegraphs in order for
 them to keep their jobs? What about silent film actors? today actors are
 required to be able to speak properly as part of their profession, So
 what about all those actors that cannot speak properly? There are of
 course more examples where a new technology deprecated some profession
 or job. Same goes for all the jobs at record companies - they are
 unneeded and the record company itself is redundant in a world where the
 artist can create he's work alone and reach his audience directly via
 the web.


This statement shows that we are fight 2 different battles. I don't care 
about record companies, and I don't think Robert does either. If you 
aren't buying records/cds whatever it is they do to publish work, they 
don't need to make money. However, the creator/composer/programmer what-
have-you can/should/does have the right to charge/limit/collect/deny... 
what-not his work in any manner he sees fit. If he goes through a record 
company that is the only legal distribution of his work that can be 
obtained. You do not have the right to decide his choice of distribution 
is invalid because it does not suit you. When you buy it you are also not 
buying the right to redistribute it.

The owner also has the right to limit the medium to which his product can 
run. While I think these things, DRM, are stupid it is still their right, 
and thus I decided not to buy it. Unfortunately that is how the free 
market work. It is not a matter of, If I want the product I can access it 
by any means necessary, but I can either live with the choice of the 
author or boycott it. And boycotting fails because of the number of 
people that go with option 1.

Question, a lot of your argument rides on the one that pirated either 
getting others to buy the product or purchasing other products from the 
creator. What if none of that happens and the creator makes no money on 
said pirate, is it still not stealing?


 
 

 business 101 - "The customer
 is always right." the moment they (RIAA, MPAA, etc..) broke that rule
 because they refused to evolve with respect to new technology and
 business models is the moment they signed their death warrants.

 I prefer supporting music artists by going to a concert and paying
 100$ for a ticket rather than paying for CDs with shitty music the
 records companies advertise and try to stick in my throat.

 one last thing, before suggesting more penalties and such please read
 the following: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
 *after* reading this, are you sure still that this is the way to go?


 
 I think what a lot of these arguments boil down to is people trying to
 justify taking stuff without paying for it. Plain and simple. I do on
 occasion download videos (these days only anime fansubs).  And I don't
 feel bad about it. But I do know it's stealing. Downloading a $10 CD is
 really no better than shoplifting a $10 CD, because the people who
 worked to bring that CD into existence are not being paid for it.
Aug 14 2008
parent reply Brad Roberts <braddr puremagic.com> writes:
<snip thread arguing both sides of the is there such a thing as IP>

Guys.. I highly suggest just dropping this part of the thread.  Neither
side will ever change the mind of the other.  It's a waste of time and
energy.

Later,
Brad
Aug 14 2008
next sibling parent reply Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com> writes:
Brad Roberts wrote:

 <snip thread arguing both sides of the is there such a thing as IP>
 
 Guys.. I highly suggest just dropping this part of the thread.  Neither
 side will ever change the mind of the other.  It's a waste of time and
 energy.
 
 Later,
 Brad


Sure IP exists. How could we communicate here otherwise? ;)
Aug 15 2008
parent Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeiros+spam com.gmail> writes:
Yigal Chripun wrote:

 Brad Roberts wrote:

 <snip thread arguing both sides of the is there such a thing as IP>

 Guys.. I highly suggest just dropping this part of the thread.  Neither
 side will ever change the mind of the other.  It's a waste of time and
 energy.

 Later,
 Brad


 
 Sure IP exists. How could we communicate here otherwise? ;)


With tubes of course...


-- 
Bruno Medeiros - Software Developer, MSc. in CS/E graduate
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D
Aug 15 2008
prev sibling parent reply Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight gmail.com> writes:
Brad Roberts wrote:

 <snip thread arguing both sides of the is there such a thing as IP>
 
 Guys.. I highly suggest just dropping this part of the thread.  Neither
 side will ever change the mind of the other.  It's a waste of time and
 energy.
 
 Later,
 Brad


Indeed, that would be the mature thing to do... but (like all internet 
wars), there's some fun to be had ;-P.
Aug 15 2008
parent BCS <ao pathlink.com> writes:
Reply to Robert,


 Brad Roberts wrote:
 

 <snip thread arguing both sides of the is there such a thing as IP>
 
 Guys.. I highly suggest just dropping this part of the thread.
 Neither side will ever change the mind of the other.  It's a waste of
 time and energy.
 
 Later,
 Brad


 Indeed, that would be the mature thing to do... but (like all internet
 wars), there's some fun to be had ;-P.
 


WE NEED A digitalmars.D.OT!
Aug 15 2008
prev sibling parent downs <default_357-line yahoo.de> writes:
Robert Fraser wrote:

 Yigal Chripun Wrote:
 

 Robert Fraser wrote:
  > I've had very mixed feelings about all this. One one hand, the letter
 of the

 law may be questionably constitutional. But millions of dollars every day are
 lost because people (including myself occasionally...) steal copyrighted
 material. Honestly, I think there should be much stricter penalties for
 things like internet piracy, because it's simply so widespread and damaging.


 Of course you have the right to have your own opinion (that's also in
 the constitution) but all of the above is bullshit. (sorry for the
 language).

 stealing only applies to physical things like chairs and cars. that
 whole metaphor of information as physical entities is wrong.
 you sure can infringe someone's copyrights but you cannot steal anything
 since there's nothing to steal.


 
 Some philosopher said that all philosophical debates were inherently
 linguistic ones that stemmed from not having the words to represent the
 concepts being spoken about. We're using different definitions of "steal,"
 but the concept is clear -- it's taking something you don't have the right
 to have taken without paying for, and the debate is over whether you do
 or should have that right.
 


Apparently the concept is not clear, because we're not talking about "taking".

We're talking about copying.

Not the same thing.


 Now that we cleared that out of the way, let's touch other nonsenses in
 what you wrote:

 A) "millions of dollars every day are lost..." - Not true. you assume
 that if a person doesn't pirate he would have payed for the stuff. this
 is a wrong assumption since the majority of people would just use other
 alternatives.


 
 Sure not everyone would have paid. But at least one person would have
 paid. Back in high school, I would have paid for a lot of the music I
 downloaded (perhaps not all of it) -- but I didn't since it was so easy for 
 me to pirate it. The statement is that piracy costs at least $1 million/day in
 LOST SALES; if you would have used a free alternative, that's not factored
 into the argument.
 


Proof by anecdote. Good going.


 if I wouldn't be able to pirate MS office 


 
 Mah paycheck!!! (that's paying me to post on D NGs...)
 

 I'd probably
 search for a cheap commercial solution or install Open Office which is
 good enough for me and most other private people and small companies. no
 one in their right mind would pay 500$ for an office suit. think
 globally: in US standards paying for software is not that expensive and
 is convenient (and you pay for that as well) but for most of the world
 those prices are high. in Israel 500$ translates to roughly 2000 NIS
 which is a lot.
 B)"it's simply so ... damaging" - not so.
 If you look at music and films than the image is backwards: since it's
 easy to pirate I can download a lot of stuff try it out and only keep
 what I like. If I like it I'll tell friends and more people will be
 exposed to the content. pirating actually makes money for the copyright
 holder and helps him get recognized since it's advertising they don't
 need to pay for.


 
 I'm going to cry bull**** here. Quite a few sites offer legit free music/
 video. The content creators/producers have made this available for
 precisely the reason you said -- so people view it and tell their friends or
 choose to buy higher-quality versions of it. The stuff they DON'T make
 available for free is not there because it is more profitable for them not
 to make it available. The creators/producers choose what to share for free
  -- NOT the consumers.
 

 If what you said was true than Red Hat and Novel wouldn't lasted more
 than a day. after all you can legally download their products from their
  respective websites!


 
 Their business model is to make money off the support for
 their software, not the software itself.
 


I think he knows that.


 The issue is not whether piracy is moral or not. it's a fact of life -
 the internet provides an efficient means for distribution of
 information. either you take advantage of it or you insist on your old
 irrelevant business model and go extinct. 


 
 Selling software/music/video/intellectual property for money is an extinct
 business model...? If that's your argument then o_O.
 


It's on its way out.


 business 101 - "The customer
 is always right." the moment they (RIAA, MPAA, etc..) broke that rule
 because they refused to evolve with respect to new technology and
 business models is the moment they signed their death warrants.

 I prefer supporting music artists by going to a concert and paying 100$
 for a ticket rather than paying for CDs with shitty music the records
 companies advertise and try to stick in my throat.

 one last thing, before suggesting more penalties and such please read
 the following: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
 *after* reading this, are you sure still that this is the way to go?


 
 I think what a lot of these arguments boil down to is people trying to
 justify taking stuff without paying for it. Plain and simple. I do on occasion
 download videos (these days only anime fansubs).  And I don't feel bad
 about it. But I do know it's stealing.


Then you are wrong. :)


 Downloading a $10 CD is really
 no better than shoplifting a $10 CD, because the people who worked to
 bring that CD into existence are not being paid for it.


And how many cents off that CD do you think the people who made it will ever
see?

Not that this is relevant, since it is. not. stealing.
Aug 15 2008
prev sibling parent reply Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 I don't know the details of the license that Walter gave to the Tango 
 devs, 


 
 It's as I posted here. Tango may use any part of Phobos and *relicense* 
 it under the Tango license that I have the power to do.
 

 but according to Phobos' license, no explicit permission is needed as 
 long as you obey the license terms (which is pretty free in its 
 terms), and in fact, Tango has the Phobos license in the runtime 
 anyways, and obeys the license that ships with Phobos.  So I don't see 
 how it is relevant that Walter gave a specific license to Tango, it 
 was not required (at least that's my understanding).  It should be the 
 same thing for Walter to accept Tango's modified version of the 
 runtime (just include a copy of Tango's license).  My understanding is 
 that Walter is against doing that for the purpose of avoiding having 2 
 licenses in phobos.  Both licenses are very similar, and completely 
 compatible.  I see that Walter doesn't like it, but I don't see why it 
 is a problem?  Perhaps you could elaborate more, Walter.


 
 I don't know what more needs to be elaborated. There are two reasons for 
 this:
 
 1. To ensure Phobos is free of any legal taint and any accusations of 
 stealing code.
 
 2. To avoid the untenable issue of a single module in Phobos having 
 different license for different lines of code.
 

 Also, I would like to know specifically what Walter needs from the 
 Tango team.  What could it be that he needs that the Tango team is 
 against?


 
 What specifically I'd like from the Tango team is explicit permission 
 for the Phobos team to go over the Tango code and be able to copy/use 
 whatever portions of it are necessary to get the two libraries to have a 
 compatible core, and to relicense those parts under the corresponding 
 Phobos license.


I think this is arguably a reasonable first step, but working towards a 
compatible core still means two separate cores, which means not being 
able to use Tango and Phobos together in the same app.  So I'll admit to 
not completely understanding the reasoning behind this approach, but 
it's the only option so I'm happy to comply.  Frankly, I don't want to 
be stuck maintaining the Tango runtime from now until doomsday anyway :-)


Sean
Aug 14 2008
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Sean Kelly wrote:

 What specifically I'd like from the Tango team is explicit permission 
 for the Phobos team to go over the Tango code and be able to copy/use 
 whatever portions of it are necessary to get the two libraries to have 
 a compatible core, and to relicense those parts under the 
 corresponding Phobos license.


 
 I think this is arguably a reasonable first step, but working towards a 
 compatible core still means two separate cores, which means not being 
 able to use Tango and Phobos together in the same app.  So I'll admit to 
 not completely understanding the reasoning behind this approach, but 
 it's the only option so I'm happy to comply.  Frankly, I don't want to 
 be stuck maintaining the Tango runtime from now until doomsday anyway :-)


If the cores are compatible at the API level, then one should be able to 
mix and match Tango/Phobos user level modules.
Aug 14 2008
next sibling parent reply "Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> writes:
"Walter Bright" <newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:g82ua5$1l6d$1 digitalmars.com...

 Sean Kelly wrote:

 What specifically I'd like from the Tango team is explicit permission 
 for the Phobos team to go over the Tango code and be able to copy/use 
 whatever portions of it are necessary to get the two libraries to have a 
 compatible core, and to relicense those parts under the corresponding 
 Phobos license.


 I think this is arguably a reasonable first step, but working towards a 
 compatible core still means two separate cores, which means not being 
 able to use Tango and Phobos together in the same app.  So I'll admit to 
 not completely understanding the reasoning behind this approach, but it's 
 the only option so I'm happy to comply.  Frankly, I don't want to be 
 stuck maintaining the Tango runtime from now until doomsday anyway :-)


 If the cores are compatible at the API level, then one should be able to 
 mix and match Tango/Phobos user level modules.


Why one would want to do that is beyond me.

If/when this licensing bullshit ever gets sorted, we still have the problem 
of two standard libraries designed with different goals and duplicate 
functionality.  What then?  How is that a solution?  If it takes over a year 
to sort this licensing stuff, how long will it take to (god forbid) merge 
the two libraries?  What are we solving here?
Aug 14 2008
parent reply "Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> writes:
"Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:g82uob$1mg2$1 digitalmars.com...

 "Walter Bright" <newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
 news:g82ua5$1l6d$1 digitalmars.com...

 Sean Kelly wrote:

 What specifically I'd like from the Tango team is explicit permission 
 for the Phobos team to go over the Tango code and be able to copy/use 
 whatever portions of it are necessary to get the two libraries to have 
 a compatible core, and to relicense those parts under the corresponding 
 Phobos license.


 I think this is arguably a reasonable first step, but working towards a 
 compatible core still means two separate cores, which means not being 
 able to use Tango and Phobos together in the same app.  So I'll admit to 
 not completely understanding the reasoning behind this approach, but 
 it's the only option so I'm happy to comply.  Frankly, I don't want to 
 be stuck maintaining the Tango runtime from now until doomsday anyway 
 :-)


 If the cores are compatible at the API level, then one should be able to 
 mix and match Tango/Phobos user level modules.


 Why one would want to do that is beyond me.


No, don't interpret this as standard-library-fanboyism.  By this I mean that 
even if you _could_ import modules from both phobos and tango, it would be 
next to impossible to use them together.  They each have their own types, 
functions etc. for anything more complex than string manipulations and math 
(and even there they differ).  You can't use a std.stream.Stream and a 
tango.io.Conduit together.  You use one or the other.  Hence, nothing has 
been solved.
Aug 14 2008
next sibling parent Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight gmail.com> writes:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:

 "Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> wrote in message 
 news:g82uob$1mg2$1 digitalmars.com...

 "Walter Bright" <newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
 news:g82ua5$1l6d$1 digitalmars.com...

 Sean Kelly wrote:

 What specifically I'd like from the Tango team is explicit permission 
 for the Phobos team to go over the Tango code and be able to copy/use 
 whatever portions of it are necessary to get the two libraries to have 
 a compatible core, and to relicense those parts under the corresponding 
 Phobos license.


 I think this is arguably a reasonable first step, but working towards a 
 compatible core still means two separate cores, which means not being 
 able to use Tango and Phobos together in the same app.  So I'll admit to 
 not completely understanding the reasoning behind this approach, but 
 it's the only option so I'm happy to comply.  Frankly, I don't want to 
 be stuck maintaining the Tango runtime from now until doomsday anyway 
 :-)


 If the cores are compatible at the API level, then one should be able to 
 mix and match Tango/Phobos user level modules.


 Why one would want to do that is beyond me.


 
 No, don't interpret this as standard-library-fanboyism.  By this I mean that 
 even if you _could_ import modules from both phobos and tango, it would be 
 next to impossible to use them together.  They each have their own types, 
 functions etc. for anything more complex than string manipulations and math 
 (and even there they differ).  You can't use a std.stream.Stream and a 
 tango.io.Conduit together.  You use one or the other.  Hence, nothing has 
 been solved. 


I think the idea is you could, say, use DWT (Tango) and DMDScript 
(Phobos) in the same application.
Aug 14 2008
prev sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:

 By this I mean that 
 even if you _could_ import modules from both phobos and tango, it would be 
 next to impossible to use them together.  They each have their own types, 
 functions etc. for anything more complex than string manipulations and math 
 (and even there they differ).  You can't use a std.stream.Stream and a 
 tango.io.Conduit together.  You use one or the other.  Hence, nothing has 
 been solved. 


I don't think anyone expects to mix up Stream and Conduit. But they 
should be able to mix up tango.io.Conduit with std.algorithm.
Aug 14 2008
prev sibling parent reply Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 Sean Kelly wrote:

 What specifically I'd like from the Tango team is explicit permission 
 for the Phobos team to go over the Tango code and be able to copy/use 
 whatever portions of it are necessary to get the two libraries to 
 have a compatible core, and to relicense those parts under the 
 corresponding Phobos license.


 I think this is arguably a reasonable first step, but working towards 
 a compatible core still means two separate cores, which means not 
 being able to use Tango and Phobos together in the same app.  So I'll 
 admit to not completely understanding the reasoning behind this 
 approach, but it's the only option so I'm happy to comply.  Frankly, I 
 don't want to be stuck maintaining the Tango runtime from now until 
 doomsday anyway :-)


 
 If the cores are compatible at the API level, then one should be able to 
 mix and match Tango/Phobos user level modules.


I think it will turn out to be more complicated than that.  The runtime 
contains user-visible code as well as the compiler support code and GC: 
exception definitions, the thread code, etc.  And Phobos vs. Tango have 
different exception hierarchies, at the very least.


Sean
Aug 14 2008
next sibling parent reply "Koroskin Denis" <2korden gmail.com> writes:
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 09:29:31 +0400, Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org>  
wrote:


 Walter Bright wrote:

 Sean Kelly wrote:

 What specifically I'd like from the Tango team is explicit permission  
 for the Phobos team to go over the Tango code and be able to copy/use  
 whatever portions of it are necessary to get the two libraries to  
 have a compatible core, and to relicense those parts under the  
 corresponding Phobos license.


 I think this is arguably a reasonable first step, but working towards  
 a compatible core still means two separate cores, which means not  
 being able to use Tango and Phobos together in the same app.  So I'll  
 admit to not completely understanding the reasoning behind this  
 approach, but it's the only option so I'm happy to comply.  Frankly, I  
 don't want to be stuck maintaining the Tango runtime from now until  
 doomsday anyway :-)


  If the cores are compatible at the API level, then one should be able  
 to mix and match Tango/Phobos user level modules.


 I think it will turn out to be more complicated than that.  The runtime  
 contains user-visible code as well as the compiler support code and GC:  
 exception definitions, the thread code, etc.  And Phobos vs. Tango have  
 different exception hierarchies, at the very least.


 Sean


Isn't it part of a runtime, i.e. something that is about to be unified?
Aug 14 2008
parent Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
Koroskin Denis wrote:

 On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 09:29:31 +0400, Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> 
 wrote:
 

 Walter Bright wrote:

 Sean Kelly wrote:

 What specifically I'd like from the Tango team is explicit 
 permission for the Phobos team to go over the Tango code and be 
 able to copy/use whatever portions of it are necessary to get the 
 two libraries to have a compatible core, and to relicense those 
 parts under the corresponding Phobos license.


 I think this is arguably a reasonable first step, but working 
 towards a compatible core still means two separate cores, which 
 means not being able to use Tango and Phobos together in the same 
 app.  So I'll admit to not completely understanding the reasoning 
 behind this approach, but it's the only option so I'm happy to 
 comply.  Frankly, I don't want to be stuck maintaining the Tango 
 runtime from now until doomsday anyway :-)


  If the cores are compatible at the API level, then one should be 
 able to mix and match Tango/Phobos user level modules.


 I think it will turn out to be more complicated than that.  The 
 runtime contains user-visible code as well as the compiler support 
 code and GC: exception definitions, the thread code, etc.  And Phobos 
 vs. Tango have different exception hierarchies, at the very least.


 
 Isn't it part of a runtime, i.e. something that is about to be unified?


But this is more than just duplicating functionality.  If the user wants 
to create a thread, what module does he import?  Having compatible 
runtimes isn't quite the same has sharing a single common runtime.


Sean
Aug 14 2008
prev sibling parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
"Sean Kelly" <sean invisibleduck.org> wrote in message 
news:g8347r$201b$1 digitalmars.com...

 Walter Bright wrote:

 Sean Kelly wrote:

 What specifically I'd like from the Tango team is explicit permission 
 for the Phobos team to go over the Tango code and be able to copy/use 
 whatever portions of it are necessary to get the two libraries to have 
 a compatible core, and to relicense those parts under the corresponding 
 Phobos license.


 I think this is arguably a reasonable first step, but working towards a 
 compatible core still means two separate cores, which means not being 
 able to use Tango and Phobos together in the same app.  So I'll admit to 
 not completely understanding the reasoning behind this approach, but 
 it's the only option so I'm happy to comply.  Frankly, I don't want to 
 be stuck maintaining the Tango runtime from now until doomsday anyway 
 :-)


 If the cores are compatible at the API level, then one should be able to 
 mix and match Tango/Phobos user level modules.


 I think it will turn out to be more complicated than that.  The runtime 
 contains user-visible code as well as the compiler support code and GC: 
 exception definitions, the thread code, etc.  And Phobos vs. Tango have 
 different exception hierarchies, at the very least.


As far as threads, I agree.  One must be chosen.

As far as exceptions, yes, one base must be chosen, and the exceptions put 
forth by the compiler must be chosen, but higher level exceptions do not 
have to be part of the runtime.  For example, in Tango, socket exceptions 
are in the same module as array bound exception (which is needed by the 
compiler).  These should be separated if we are to have a common runtime.

And in that case, I think you can draw a clear line: what is needed to 
compile programs, and what is needed to start the runtime.  Everything else 
should be standard library code, and should be relegated to whatever you 
fancy as the runtime.

I propose these essential classes and modules be moved into a separate 
package, like std.runtime.  So you would have std.runtime.thread, 
std.runtime.exception, etc.  Or whatever.  Then the line is even clearer.

-Steve
Aug 15 2008
next sibling parent reply Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 "Sean Kelly" <sean invisibleduck.org> wrote in message 
 news:g8347r$201b$1 digitalmars.com...

 Walter Bright wrote:

 Sean Kelly wrote:

 What specifically I'd like from the Tango team is explicit permission 
 for the Phobos team to go over the Tango code and be able to copy/use 
 whatever portions of it are necessary to get the two libraries to have 
 a compatible core, and to relicense those parts under the corresponding 
 Phobos license.


 I think this is arguably a reasonable first step, but working towards a 
 compatible core still means two separate cores, which means not being 
 able to use Tango and Phobos together in the same app.  So I'll admit to 
 not completely understanding the reasoning behind this approach, but 
 it's the only option so I'm happy to comply.  Frankly, I don't want to 
 be stuck maintaining the Tango runtime from now until doomsday anyway 
 :-)


 If the cores are compatible at the API level, then one should be able to 
 mix and match Tango/Phobos user level modules.


 I think it will turn out to be more complicated than that.  The runtime 
 contains user-visible code as well as the compiler support code and GC: 
 exception definitions, the thread code, etc.  And Phobos vs. Tango have 
 different exception hierarchies, at the very least.


 
 As far as threads, I agree.  One must be chosen.
 
 As far as exceptions, yes, one base must be chosen, and the exceptions put 
 forth by the compiler must be chosen, but higher level exceptions do not 
 have to be part of the runtime.  For example, in Tango, socket exceptions 
 are in the same module as array bound exception (which is needed by the 
 compiler).  These should be separated if we are to have a common runtime.


This decision camw fairly late in the game, and the basic reasoning was 
that we wanted to establish a formal exception hierarchy.  So a bunch of 
relatively standard exceptions were moved into tango.core.Exception to 
populate the hierarchy.  The alternative would have been for multiple 
packages in Tango to try and declare and share a common top-level 
Exception class, and that was just too messy.  However, I think it's 
worth noting that none of the exceptions declared in tango.core are 
terribly specific.  Even SocketException is extremely broad, and as 
applicable for end users as it is for Tango itself.

For what it's worth, this is one of the few bits of the runtime that I 
didn't send to Walter because others were involved in designing the 
hierarchy.  Since there's no real code involved in exception 
declarations it was probably over-cautious of me to omit it, but I 
didn't want there to be any risk of contention later.


 And in that case, I think you can draw a clear line: what is needed to 
 compile programs, and what is needed to start the runtime.  Everything else 
 should be standard library code, and should be relegated to whatever you 
 fancy as the runtime.


Tango was designed from the start such that the runtime (that is, the 
code which is loaded invisibly for every D application) consists of 
three distinct parts:

* the compiler runtime (ie. language support code)
* the garbage collector
* some subset of the standard library which the compiler and GC code may 
depend upon

This design has some great advantages:

* People with special needs (such as kernel developers) can replace or 
stub out an entire subset of the runtime if the default version doesn't 
suit their needs
* The compiler runtime is completely separate from the other runtime 
code and may be maintained entirely separately--ie. it has no 
dependencies on standard library code
* The garbage collector is completely separate as well.  In fact, the GC 
may be chosen at link-time simply by specifying a different library. 
Tango contains two GCs to demonstrate this: one is the classic 
mark/sweep GC and the other simply calls malloc and free.

Unfortunately however, none of this gets around the issue that the 
standard library portion of the code must exist in only one location. 
And I expect that both the Phobos and Tango team have a vested interest 
in not changing how this stuff is exposed.  In the case of Tango, this 
interest is backed by the fact that we have a book in print documenting 
this stuff, which also happens to be the only English book about D that 
I'm aware of.


 I propose these essential classes and modules be moved into a separate 
 package, like std.runtime.  So you would have std.runtime.thread, 
 std.runtime.exception, etc.  Or whatever.  Then the line is even clearer.


See above.  That would be fine except for the confusion it would cause 
for readers of our book.  Also, maintenance responsibility is a 
potential issue.  None of these issues are addressed by a simple desire 
to share code.


Sean
Aug 15 2008
next sibling parent reply Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight gmail.com> writes:
Sean Kelly wrote:

 I propose these essential classes and modules be moved into a separate 
 package, like std.runtime.  So you would have std.runtime.thread, 
 std.runtime.exception, etc.  Or whatever.  Then the line is even clearer.


 
 See above.  That would be fine except for the confusion it would cause 
 for readers of our book.  Also, maintenance responsibility is a 
 potential issue.  None of these issues are addressed by a simple desire 
 to share code.
 
 
 Sean


I suppose the magic of aliases and templates couldn't help at all here 
(i.e. make tango.Thread a compile-time wrapper around std.runtime.thread 
...?)
Aug 15 2008
parent reply Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
Robert Fraser wrote:

 Sean Kelly wrote:

 I propose these essential classes and modules be moved into a 
 separate package, like std.runtime.  So you would have 
 std.runtime.thread, std.runtime.exception, etc.  Or whatever.  Then 
 the line is even clearer.


 See above.  That would be fine except for the confusion it would cause 
 for readers of our book.  Also, maintenance responsibility is a 
 potential issue.  None of these issues are addressed by a simple 
 desire to share code.


 Sean


 
 I suppose the magic of aliases and templates couldn't help at all here 
 (i.e. make tango.Thread a compile-time wrapper around std.runtime.thread 
 ...?)


Currently, it's the opposite with Tango/Tangobos (std.thread.Thread 
basically aliases tango.core.Thread.Thread).  But I consider this to be 
too much of a hack to have as a long-term solution.


Sean
Aug 15 2008
parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
"Sean Kelly" wrote

 Robert Fraser wrote:

 Sean Kelly wrote:

 I propose these essential classes and modules be moved into a separate 
 package, like std.runtime.  So you would have std.runtime.thread, 
 std.runtime.exception, etc.  Or whatever.  Then the line is even 
 clearer.


 See above.  That would be fine except for the confusion it would cause 
 for readers of our book.  Also, maintenance responsibility is a 
 potential issue.  None of these issues are addressed by a simple desire 
 to share code.


 Sean


 I suppose the magic of aliases and templates couldn't help at all here 
 (i.e. make tango.Thread a compile-time wrapper around std.runtime.thread 
 ...?)


 Currently, it's the opposite with Tango/Tangobos (std.thread.Thread 
 basically aliases tango.core.Thread.Thread).  But I consider this to be 
 too much of a hack to have as a long-term solution.


The tango.core.Thread alias would be a convenience for backwards 
compatibility.  It can be discouraged in favor of std.runtime.Thread.

The only palatable solution I see is for a common namespace to exist.  If 
you insist on the thread portion living in a namespace such as 
tango.core.Thread, then I can't see Phobos adopting that, and you are 
killing this whole compatibility project :(

-Steve
Aug 15 2008
parent Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 "Sean Kelly" wrote

 Robert Fraser wrote:

 Sean Kelly wrote:

 I propose these essential classes and modules be moved into a separate 
 package, like std.runtime.  So you would have std.runtime.thread, 
 std.runtime.exception, etc.  Or whatever.  Then the line is even 
 clearer.


 See above.  That would be fine except for the confusion it would cause 
 for readers of our book.  Also, maintenance responsibility is a 
 potential issue.  None of these issues are addressed by a simple desire 
 to share code.


 Sean


 I suppose the magic of aliases and templates couldn't help at all here 
 (i.e. make tango.Thread a compile-time wrapper around std.runtime.thread 
 ...?)


 Currently, it's the opposite with Tango/Tangobos (std.thread.Thread 
 basically aliases tango.core.Thread.Thread).  But I consider this to be 
 too much of a hack to have as a long-term solution.


 
 The tango.core.Thread alias would be a convenience for backwards 
 compatibility.  It can be discouraged in favor of std.runtime.Thread.
 
 The only palatable solution I see is for a common namespace to exist.  If 
 you insist on the thread portion living in a namespace such as 
 tango.core.Thread, then I can't see Phobos adopting that, and you are 
 killing this whole compatibility project :(


I would very much like to see a single standard library for D.  But 
certainly you can see that what you're asking is for Tango to forego all 
the consideration that has gone into its current design simply because 
Phobos is somehow inviolate, while at the same time Phobos for some 
reason wants to benefit from all the work that has gone into Tango.  I'd 
hardly consider this collaboration, so you can perhaps understand why 
some of the other Tango team members aren't quite so cooperative as I 
have been.

Truth be told, my desire to be conciliatory has long since been replaced 
with a desire to simply be done with the drama.  So regardless of my 
opinion above (which is admittedly rather jaded and defensive), or 
perhaps in light of the reasons behind it, I'm mostly interested in just 
moving on.  And because of this, I don't feel it's fair for me to speak 
for the rest of the Tango team.  I'm simply hoping to clear the air and 
am following through with the promises I made to Walter a year ago when 
we last discussed all this.


Sean
Aug 15 2008
prev sibling parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
"Sean Kelly" wrote

 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 "Sean Kelly" <sean invisibleduck.org> wrote in message 
 news:g8347r$201b$1 digitalmars.com...

 Walter Bright wrote:

 Sean Kelly wrote:

 What specifically I'd like from the Tango team is explicit permission 
 for the Phobos team to go over the Tango code and be able to copy/use 
 whatever portions of it are necessary to get the two libraries to 
 have a compatible core, and to relicense those parts under the 
 corresponding Phobos license.


 I think this is arguably a reasonable first step, but working towards 
 a compatible core still means two separate cores, which means not 
 being able to use Tango and Phobos together in the same app.  So I'll 
 admit to not completely understanding the reasoning behind this 
 approach, but it's the only option so I'm happy to comply.  Frankly, I 
 don't want to be stuck maintaining the Tango runtime from now until 
 doomsday anyway :-)


 If the cores are compatible at the API level, then one should be able 
 to mix and match Tango/Phobos user level modules.


 I think it will turn out to be more complicated than that.  The runtime 
 contains user-visible code as well as the compiler support code and GC: 
 exception definitions, the thread code, etc.  And Phobos vs. Tango have 
 different exception hierarchies, at the very least.


 As far as threads, I agree.  One must be chosen.

 As far as exceptions, yes, one base must be chosen, and the exceptions 
 put forth by the compiler must be chosen, but higher level exceptions do 
 not have to be part of the runtime.  For example, in Tango, socket 
 exceptions are in the same module as array bound exception (which is 
 needed by the compiler).  These should be separated if we are to have a 
 common runtime.


 This decision camw fairly late in the game, and the basic reasoning was 
 that we wanted to establish a formal exception hierarchy.  So a bunch of 
 relatively standard exceptions were moved into tango.core.Exception to 
 populate the hierarchy.  The alternative would have been for multiple 
 packages in Tango to try and declare and share a common top-level 
 Exception class, and that was just too messy.  However, I think it's worth 
 noting that none of the exceptions declared in tango.core are terribly 
 specific.  Even SocketException is extremely broad, and as applicable for 
 end users as it is for Tango itself.


I didn't mean exceptions need to be defined in individual modules, they can 
live in one file, but the user-lib exceptions need to be separate, because 
Phobos isn't going to care about Tango's SocketException for instance (or 
vice versa).

There is nothing wrong with having runtime exceptions in one module, and 
being publicly imported in the user lib's exception module (which could 
remain as tango.core.Exception).


 For what it's worth, this is one of the few bits of the runtime that I 
 didn't send to Walter because others were involved in designing the 
 hierarchy.  Since there's no real code involved in exception declarations 
 it was probably over-cautious of me to omit it, but I didn't want there to 
 be any risk of contention later.


 And in that case, I think you can draw a clear line: what is needed to 
 compile programs, and what is needed to start the runtime.  Everything 
 else should be standard library code, and should be relegated to whatever 
 you fancy as the runtime.


 Tango was designed from the start such that the runtime (that is, the code 
 which is loaded invisibly for every D application) consists of three 
 distinct parts:

 * the compiler runtime (ie. language support code)
 * the garbage collector
 * some subset of the standard library which the compiler and GC code may 
 depend upon

 This design has some great advantages:

 * People with special needs (such as kernel developers) can replace or 
 stub out an entire subset of the runtime if the default version doesn't 
 suit their needs
 * The compiler runtime is completely separate from the other runtime code 
 and may be maintained entirely separately--ie. it has no dependencies on 
 standard library code
 * The garbage collector is completely separate as well.  In fact, the GC 
 may be chosen at link-time simply by specifying a different library. Tango 
 contains two GCs to demonstrate this: one is the classic mark/sweep GC and 
 the other simply calls malloc and free.


I agree that Tango's runtime design makes it ideal for splitting out from 
the user code.


 Unfortunately however, none of this gets around the issue that the 
 standard library portion of the code must exist in only one location. And 
 I expect that both the Phobos and Tango team have a vested interest in not 
 changing how this stuff is exposed.  In the case of Tango, this interest 
 is backed by the fact that we have a book in print documenting this stuff, 
 which also happens to be the only English book about D that I'm aware of.


Exposure can be aliased (see below).


 I propose these essential classes and modules be moved into a separate 
 package, like std.runtime.  So you would have std.runtime.thread, 
 std.runtime.exception, etc.  Or whatever.  Then the line is even clearer.


 See above.  That would be fine except for the confusion it would cause for 
 readers of our book.  Also, maintenance responsibility is a potential 
 issue.  None of these issues are addressed by a simple desire to share 
 code.


This is my view (might not work, but I think it could).  For purposes of 
simplicity, I'll assume Walter currently develops the Phobos runtime (not 
that he doesn't, but I'm really not sure :).

Maintenance of the merged runtime would become Walter's responsibility, with 
your help if necessary (ideas and help understanding, and enhancements if 
you wish).  Any changes desired for the runtime would go through Phobos (and 
Walter).  The Tango lib would use the now tango-fied Phobos runtime, with 
alias imports for existing code (e.g. tango.core.Thread would either 
publicly import std.thread or would privately import it, and alias the 
Thread class).

Phobos user lib code would do the same, although I'd suspect that since 
Walter is maintaining the runtime, he'd want to follow Phobos' package and 
naming conventions.  The one requirement for it is that the Phobos runtime 
MUST be separate from the user lib, and not depend on it.  So no calling on 
Andrei's fancy Phobos-only templates :)  This is similar to how I wanted 
Thread to use TimeSpan, but we can't because TimeSpan is part of the user 
lib.

People who have the book can still use the code and ideas presented in the 
book, because the imports will alias the real classes/structs from the new 
Phobos runtime.

BTW, since the book was released, there have been a lot of breaking changes, 
so the edge of that point is dulled quite a bit.

How does this sound (for both you and Walter)?

-Steve
Aug 15 2008
next sibling parent reply Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 "Sean Kelly" wrote

 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 "Sean Kelly" <sean invisibleduck.org> wrote in message 
 news:g8347r$201b$1 digitalmars.com...

 Walter Bright wrote:

 Sean Kelly wrote:

 What specifically I'd like from the Tango team is explicit permission 
 for the Phobos team to go over the Tango code and be able to copy/use 
 whatever portions of it are necessary to get the two libraries to 
 have a compatible core, and to relicense those parts under the 
 corresponding Phobos license.


 I think this is arguably a reasonable first step, but working towards 
 a compatible core still means two separate cores, which means not 
 being able to use Tango and Phobos together in the same app.  So I'll 
 admit to not completely understanding the reasoning behind this 
 approach, but it's the only option so I'm happy to comply.  Frankly, I 
 don't want to be stuck maintaining the Tango runtime from now until 
 doomsday anyway :-)


 If the cores are compatible at the API level, then one should be able 
 to mix and match Tango/Phobos user level modules.


 I think it will turn out to be more complicated than that.  The runtime 
 contains user-visible code as well as the compiler support code and GC: 
 exception definitions, the thread code, etc.  And Phobos vs. Tango have 
 different exception hierarchies, at the very least.


 As far as threads, I agree.  One must be chosen.

 As far as exceptions, yes, one base must be chosen, and the exceptions 
 put forth by the compiler must be chosen, but higher level exceptions do 
 not have to be part of the runtime.  For example, in Tango, socket 
 exceptions are in the same module as array bound exception (which is 
 needed by the compiler).  These should be separated if we are to have a 
 common runtime.


 This decision camw fairly late in the game, and the basic reasoning was 
 that we wanted to establish a formal exception hierarchy.  So a bunch of 
 relatively standard exceptions were moved into tango.core.Exception to 
 populate the hierarchy.  The alternative would have been for multiple 
 packages in Tango to try and declare and share a common top-level 
 Exception class, and that was just too messy.  However, I think it's worth 
 noting that none of the exceptions declared in tango.core are terribly 
 specific.  Even SocketException is extremely broad, and as applicable for 
 end users as it is for Tango itself.


 
 I didn't mean exceptions need to be defined in individual modules, they can 
 live in one file, but the user-lib exceptions need to be separate, because 
 Phobos isn't going to care about Tango's SocketException for instance (or 
 vice versa).
 
 There is nothing wrong with having runtime exceptions in one module, and 
 being publicly imported in the user lib's exception module (which could 
 remain as tango.core.Exception).
 

 For what it's worth, this is one of the few bits of the runtime that I 
 didn't send to Walter because others were involved in designing the 
 hierarchy.  Since there's no real code involved in exception declarations 
 it was probably over-cautious of me to omit it, but I didn't want there to 
 be any risk of contention later.


 And in that case, I think you can draw a clear line: what is needed to 
 compile programs, and what is needed to start the runtime.  Everything 
 else should be standard library code, and should be relegated to whatever 
 you fancy as the runtime.


 Tango was designed from the start such that the runtime (that is, the code 
 which is loaded invisibly for every D application) consists of three 
 distinct parts:

 * the compiler runtime (ie. language support code)
 * the garbage collector
 * some subset of the standard library which the compiler and GC code may 
 depend upon

 This design has some great advantages:

 * People with special needs (such as kernel developers) can replace or 
 stub out an entire subset of the runtime if the default version doesn't 
 suit their needs
 * The compiler runtime is completely separate from the other runtime code 
 and may be maintained entirely separately--ie. it has no dependencies on 
 standard library code
 * The garbage collector is completely separate as well.  In fact, the GC 
 may be chosen at link-time simply by specifying a different library. Tango 
 contains two GCs to demonstrate this: one is the classic mark/sweep GC and 
 the other simply calls malloc and free.


 
 I agree that Tango's runtime design makes it ideal for splitting out from 
 the user code.
 

 Unfortunately however, none of this gets around the issue that the 
 standard library portion of the code must exist in only one location. And 
 I expect that both the Phobos and Tango team have a vested interest in not 
 changing how this stuff is exposed.  In the case of Tango, this interest 
 is backed by the fact that we have a book in print documenting this stuff, 
 which also happens to be the only English book about D that I'm aware of.


 
 Exposure can be aliased (see below).
 

 I propose these essential classes and modules be moved into a separate 
 package, like std.runtime.  So you would have std.runtime.thread, 
 std.runtime.exception, etc.  Or whatever.  Then the line is even clearer.


 See above.  That would be fine except for the confusion it would cause for 
 readers of our book.  Also, maintenance responsibility is a potential 
 issue.  None of these issues are addressed by a simple desire to share 
 code.


 
 This is my view (might not work, but I think it could).  For purposes of 
 simplicity, I'll assume Walter currently develops the Phobos runtime (not 
 that he doesn't, but I'm really not sure :).
 
 Maintenance of the merged runtime would become Walter's responsibility, with 
 your help if necessary (ideas and help understanding, and enhancements if 
 you wish).  Any changes desired for the runtime would go through Phobos (and 
 Walter).  The Tango lib would use the now tango-fied Phobos runtime, with 
 alias imports for existing code (e.g. tango.core.Thread would either 
 publicly import std.thread or would privately import it, and alias the 
 Thread class).


My original goal was to have Walter maintain the DMD compiler runtime 
and leave the rest to the appropriate parties.  Walter clearly can't 
maintain the entire runtime because Tango includes compiler runtimes for 
GDC (currently) and LLVMC (soon), etc.  Each of these should ideally be 
maintained by the respective compiler author.  One of the problems in my 
mind is that Phobos isn't portable, as justified by the fact that GDC 
contains GPhobos.  It's an untenable long-term solution.


 Phobos user lib code would do the same, although I'd suspect that since 
 Walter is maintaining the runtime, he'd want to follow Phobos' package and 
 naming conventions.  The one requirement for it is that the Phobos runtime 
 MUST be separate from the user lib, and not depend on it.  So no calling on 
 Andrei's fancy Phobos-only templates :)  This is similar to how I wanted 
 Thread to use TimeSpan, but we can't because TimeSpan is part of the user 
 lib.


Yeah, I wanted to move TimeSpan into the runtime so this would be 
possible but was out-voted.  But I think we both agree that the Tango 
design is fairly close to ideal in that the runtime is entirely separate 
from the user code (aside from some of the necessary exported bits).


 People who have the book can still use the code and ideas presented in the 
 book, because the imports will alias the real classes/structs from the new 
 Phobos runtime.


One concern I have about moving the runtime into Phobos is portability / 
flexibility.  Will it be possible to use the runtime without the user 
code as it is in Tango?  Will it continue to be compiler-agnostic?  I'll 
admit that I completely fail to see the point of the language creator 
being the go-to man for the standard library as well.


 BTW, since the book was released, there have been a lot of breaking changes, 
 so the edge of that point is dulled quite a bit.


Few, if any, of those breaking changes were covered by the book as far 
as I'm aware.


 How does this sound (for both you and Walter)?


When you get right down to it, I really don't want to be stuck working 
on Tango for the rest of my life, so my feelings are mixed.  I think 
that D accepting Tango as the official standard library and Walter et 
al. collaborating with the Tango maintainers would be the optimal 
solution for all concerned.  However, I also don't want to be placed in 
a position where I'm the linchpin holding everything together.  My 
personal responsibilities have grown considerably since Tango was 
started and that's far more time and responsibility than I want, barring 
a considerable paycheck for doing so.  So in short I think it would be a 
bad idea but I'd probably agree to it anyway because doing so is in my 
own best interest.


Sean
Aug 15 2008
parent "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
"Sean Kelly" wrote

 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 This is my view (might not work, but I think it could).  For purposes of 
 simplicity, I'll assume Walter currently develops the Phobos runtime (not 
 that he doesn't, but I'm really not sure :).

 Maintenance of the merged runtime would become Walter's responsibility, 
 with your help if necessary (ideas and help understanding, and 
 enhancements if you wish).  Any changes desired for the runtime would go 
 through Phobos (and Walter).  The Tango lib would use the now tango-fied 
 Phobos runtime, with alias imports for existing code (e.g. 
 tango.core.Thread would either publicly import std.thread or would 
 privately import it, and alias the Thread class).


 My original goal was to have Walter maintain the DMD compiler runtime and 
 leave the rest to the appropriate parties.  Walter clearly can't maintain 
 the entire runtime because Tango includes compiler runtimes for GDC 
 (currently) and LLVMC (soon), etc.  Each of these should ideally be 
 maintained by the respective compiler author.


Again, for the purposes of simplicity, I said Walter, but I meant 'Phobos 
runtime developer'.  I don't know who that is or will be.


 One of the problems in my mind is that Phobos isn't portable, as justified 
 by the fact that GDC contains GPhobos.  It's an untenable long-term 
 solution.


Then let's make it portable :)  At least the runtime portion.


 Phobos user lib code would do the same, although I'd suspect that since 
 Walter is maintaining the runtime, he'd want to follow Phobos' package 
 and naming conventions.  The one requirement for it is that the Phobos 
 runtime MUST be separate from the user lib, and not depend on it.  So no 
 calling on Andrei's fancy Phobos-only templates :)  This is similar to 
 how I wanted Thread to use TimeSpan, but we can't because TimeSpan is 
 part of the user lib.


 Yeah, I wanted to move TimeSpan into the runtime so this would be possible 
 but was out-voted.  But I think we both agree that the Tango design is 
 fairly close to ideal in that the runtime is entirely separate from the 
 user code (aside from some of the necessary exported bits).


 People who have the book can still use the code and ideas presented in 
 the book, because the imports will alias the real classes/structs from 
 the new Phobos runtime.


 One concern I have about moving the runtime into Phobos is portability / 
 flexibility.  Will it be possible to use the runtime without the user code 
 as it is in Tango?


It has to be in order for both Tango and Phobos to use it.  That is a 
requirement (one which should be satisfied by copying Tango's runtime).


 Will it continue to be compiler-agnostic?


That, I can't say.  But with effort, it can be maintained that way.  Perhaps 
once the port is done, external compilers can own their respective compiler 
parts.  If they are using the new runtime, it should also be compatible with 
Tango.

My idea of the porting should involve repackaging the Tango runtime into a 
generic style (or at least one that suits whoever is maintaining it), and 
then porting both libs to use the new runtime.

The checks and balances come when releases are made that break 
compatibility, we submit bugs, the runtime gets fixed.  It works no 
different than Tango development does today, except that the runtime code 
lives in Phobos.


 How does this sound (for both you and Walter)?


 When you get right down to it, I really don't want to be stuck working on 
 Tango for the rest of my life, so my feelings are mixed.  I think that D 
 accepting Tango as the official standard library and Walter et al. 
 collaborating with the Tango maintainers would be the optimal solution for 
 all concerned.


As someone who prefers Tango, D accepting Tango as the standard library 
would be fine with me.  But realistically, that ain't gonna happen :)  You 
have to respect that Phobos developers have a lot of time and effort 
invested in Phobos, and to see it just get replaced would be a huge kick in 
the ass for them.

I think the optimal solution is for both libraries to coexist, AND to be 
binary compatible.


 However, I also don't want to be placed in a position where I'm the 
 linchpin holding everything together.  My personal responsibilities have 
 grown considerably since Tango was started and that's far more time and 
 responsibility than I want, barring a considerable paycheck for doing so. 
 So in short I think it would be a bad idea but I'd probably agree to it 
 anyway because doing so is in my own best interest.


I think you might only be a linchpin until the port is done, then if you 
don't want to continue maintaining, I'm sure that void will get filled.

-Steve
Aug 15 2008
prev sibling parent reply Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 

 This is my view (might not work, but I think it could).  For purposes of
 simplicity, I'll assume Walter currently develops the Phobos runtime (not
 that he doesn't, but I'm really not sure :).
 
 Maintenance of the merged runtime would become Walter's responsibility,
 with your help if necessary (ideas and help understanding, and
 enhancements if
 you wish).  Any changes desired for the runtime would go through Phobos
 (and
 Walter).  The Tango lib would use the now tango-fied Phobos runtime, with
 alias imports for existing code (e.g. tango.core.Thread would either
 publicly import std.thread or would privately import it, and alias the
 Thread class).


Based on historical evidence, this doesn't sound like a particularly good
idea. The current situation ensued for a reason.

Also, I find that this discussion quite completely ignores the fact that DMD
is not the only D compiler anymore, and Walter is not the only one with a
vested interest in the functionality. In fact it looks like quite many of
the Tango conference attendants wants to discuss the runtime.

If there should be a common-common (not only "just" compatible) runtime, it
shouldn't be controlled by one compiler vendor. Note that the Tango runtime
consists of 3 parts, where only one is compiler specific. That particular
part should probably be controlled/reviewed by the compiler vendor, the
rest (GC, threading, other things) should be independent.

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango
Aug 15 2008
next sibling parent reply Lutger <lutger.blijdestijn gmail.com> writes:
Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:


 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
  

 This is my view (might not work, but I think it could).  For purposes of
 simplicity, I'll assume Walter currently develops the Phobos runtime (not
 that he doesn't, but I'm really not sure :).
 
 Maintenance of the merged runtime would become Walter's responsibility,
 with your help if necessary (ideas and help understanding, and
 enhancements if
 you wish).  Any changes desired for the runtime would go through Phobos
 (and
 Walter).  The Tango lib would use the now tango-fied Phobos runtime, with
 alias imports for existing code (e.g. tango.core.Thread would either
 publicly import std.thread or would privately import it, and alias the
 Thread class).


 
 Based on historical evidence, this doesn't sound like a particularly good
 idea. The current situation ensued for a reason.
 
 Also, I find that this discussion quite completely ignores the fact that
 DMD is not the only D compiler anymore, and Walter is not the only one
 with a vested interest in the functionality. In fact it looks like quite
 many of the Tango conference attendants wants to discuss the runtime.


How does it ignore it? It sounds rather like the opposite to me: the very
existence of multiple runtimes and the vested interest in those runtimes
(Tango's primarily) are the key reason for unification.
 

 If there should be a common-common (not only "just" compatible) runtime,
 it shouldn't be controlled by one compiler vendor. Note that the Tango
 runtime consists of 3 parts, where only one is compiler specific. That
 particular part should probably be controlled/reviewed by the compiler
 vendor, the rest (GC, threading, other things) should be independent.


I'll admit my understanding is limited, but I'd guess that will lead to even
further fragmentation and non-portability. Wasn't D supposed to be more
portable between compiler implementations than C++ as opposed to less
portable?
Aug 15 2008
parent reply Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:
Lutger wrote:


 Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
 

 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
  

 This is my view (might not work, but I think it could).  For purposes of
 simplicity, I'll assume Walter currently develops the Phobos runtime
 (not that he doesn't, but I'm really not sure :).
 
 Maintenance of the merged runtime would become Walter's responsibility,
 with your help if necessary (ideas and help understanding, and
 enhancements if
 you wish).  Any changes desired for the runtime would go through Phobos
 (and
 Walter).  The Tango lib would use the now tango-fied Phobos runtime,
 with alias imports for existing code (e.g. tango.core.Thread would
 either publicly import std.thread or would privately import it, and
 alias the Thread class).


 
 Based on historical evidence, this doesn't sound like a particularly good
 idea. The current situation ensued for a reason.
 
 Also, I find that this discussion quite completely ignores the fact that
 DMD is not the only D compiler anymore, and Walter is not the only one
 with a vested interest in the functionality. In fact it looks like quite
 many of the Tango conference attendants wants to discuss the runtime.


 
 How does it ignore it? It sounds rather like the opposite to me: the very
 existence of multiple runtimes and the vested interest in those runtimes
 (Tango's primarily) are the key reason for unification.


Unification, yes. You misunderstood my point, which is that the runtime
implementation (not the compiler specific portion and direct language
support) should, IMO, be independent. As long as Walter/DigitalMars is the
developer of the language itself, it will be natural that eventual new
features that the language requires from the runtime, will be bootstrapped
by code from Walter, but I think Sean's work on the runtime in Tango shows
that such initial implementation can have large potential for improvements.


  

 If there should be a common-common (not only "just" compatible) runtime,
 it shouldn't be controlled by one compiler vendor. Note that the Tango
 runtime consists of 3 parts, where only one is compiler specific. That
 particular part should probably be controlled/reviewed by the compiler
 vendor, the rest (GC, threading, other things) should be independent.


 
 I'll admit my understanding is limited, but I'd guess that will lead to
 even further fragmentation and non-portability. 


The compiler part would have to conform to the necessary interfaces, of
course, but at some level the implementation details needs to be, and not
all can be kept in the compiler itself, thus it must be somewhere in the
runtime. I don't see this as a problem, just a necessary evil.

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango
Aug 16 2008
next sibling parent reply Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com> writes:
Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:

 Lutger wrote:
 

 Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:


 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
  

 This is my view (might not work, but I think it could).  For purposes of
 simplicity, I'll assume Walter currently develops the Phobos runtime
 (not that he doesn't, but I'm really not sure :).

 Maintenance of the merged runtime would become Walter's responsibility,
 with your help if necessary (ideas and help understanding, and
 enhancements if
 you wish).  Any changes desired for the runtime would go through Phobos
 (and
 Walter).  The Tango lib would use the now tango-fied Phobos runtime,
 with alias imports for existing code (e.g. tango.core.Thread would
 either publicly import std.thread or would privately import it, and
 alias the Thread class).


 Based on historical evidence, this doesn't sound like a particularly good
 idea. The current situation ensued for a reason.

 Also, I find that this discussion quite completely ignores the fact that
 DMD is not the only D compiler anymore, and Walter is not the only one
 with a vested interest in the functionality. In fact it looks like quite
 many of the Tango conference attendants wants to discuss the runtime.


 How does it ignore it? It sounds rather like the opposite to me: the very
 existence of multiple runtimes and the vested interest in those runtimes
 (Tango's primarily) are the key reason for unification.


 
 Unification, yes. You misunderstood my point, which is that the runtime
 implementation (not the compiler specific portion and direct language
 support) should, IMO, be independent. As long as Walter/DigitalMars is the
 developer of the language itself, it will be natural that eventual new
 features that the language requires from the runtime, will be bootstrapped
 by code from Walter, but I think Sean's work on the runtime in Tango shows
 that such initial implementation can have large potential for improvements.
 

  

 If there should be a common-common (not only "just" compatible) runtime,
 it shouldn't be controlled by one compiler vendor. Note that the Tango
 runtime consists of 3 parts, where only one is compiler specific. That
 particular part should probably be controlled/reviewed by the compiler
 vendor, the rest (GC, threading, other things) should be independent.


 I'll admit my understanding is limited, but I'd guess that will lead to
 even further fragmentation and non-portability. 


 
 The compiler part would have to conform to the necessary interfaces, of
 course, but at some level the implementation details needs to be, and not
 all can be kept in the compiler itself, thus it must be somewhere in the
 runtime. I don't see this as a problem, just a necessary evil.
 


I don't understand your point. are you suggesting that things like the
GC will be independent from the compiler?
It seems to me that the model suggested by Sean is the way to go:
ie:

my code
----------
standard library user code and standardized APIs to the runtime
(threading, etc
---------------------------------
compiler + runtime A  | compiler + runtime B | .....


if a user isn't satisfied by runtime/compiler A he should just switch
vendors.
All the user facing APIs are standardized in the stdlib so all is needed
is to recompile..
Aug 16 2008
next sibling parent reply Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:
Yigal Chripun wrote:


 Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:

 Lutger wrote:
 

 Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:


 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
  

 This is my view (might not work, but I think it could).  For purposes
 of simplicity, I'll assume Walter currently develops the Phobos
 runtime (not that he doesn't, but I'm really not sure :).

 Maintenance of the merged runtime would become Walter's
 responsibility, with your help if necessary (ideas and help
 understanding, and enhancements if
 you wish).  Any changes desired for the runtime would go through
 Phobos (and
 Walter).  The Tango lib would use the now tango-fied Phobos runtime,
 with alias imports for existing code (e.g. tango.core.Thread would
 either publicly import std.thread or would privately import it, and
 alias the Thread class).


 Based on historical evidence, this doesn't sound like a particularly
 good idea. The current situation ensued for a reason.

 Also, I find that this discussion quite completely ignores the fact
 that DMD is not the only D compiler anymore, and Walter is not the only
 one with a vested interest in the functionality. In fact it looks like
 quite many of the Tango conference attendants wants to discuss the
 runtime.


 How does it ignore it? It sounds rather like the opposite to me: the
 very existence of multiple runtimes and the vested interest in those
 runtimes (Tango's primarily) are the key reason for unification.


 
 Unification, yes. You misunderstood my point, which is that the runtime
 implementation (not the compiler specific portion and direct language
 support) should, IMO, be independent. As long as Walter/DigitalMars is
 the developer of the language itself, it will be natural that eventual
 new features that the language requires from the runtime, will be
 bootstrapped by code from Walter, but I think Sean's work on the runtime
 in Tango shows that such initial implementation can have large potential
 for improvements.
 

  

 If there should be a common-common (not only "just" compatible)
 runtime, it shouldn't be controlled by one compiler vendor. Note that
 the Tango runtime consists of 3 parts, where only one is compiler
 specific. That particular part should probably be controlled/reviewed
 by the compiler vendor, the rest (GC, threading, other things) should
 be independent.


 I'll admit my understanding is limited, but I'd guess that will lead to
 even further fragmentation and non-portability.


 
 The compiler part would have to conform to the necessary interfaces, of
 course, but at some level the implementation details needs to be, and not
 all can be kept in the compiler itself, thus it must be somewhere in the
 runtime. I don't see this as a problem, just a necessary evil.
 


 
 I don't understand your point. are you suggesting that things like the
 GC will be independent from the compiler?
 It seems to me that the model suggested by Sean is the way to go:
 ie:
 
 my code
 ----------
 standard library user code and standardized APIs to the runtime
 (threading, etc
 ---------------------------------
 compiler + runtime A  | compiler + runtime B | .....
 
 
 if a user isn't satisfied by runtime/compiler A he should just switch
 vendors.
 All the user facing APIs are standardized in the stdlib so all is needed
 is to recompile..


A common interface (API and ABI) would make this easier, but I just tend to
think that a common implementation as long as possible would be even
better - unification of efforts etc.

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango
Aug 16 2008
parent reply Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com> writes:
Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:

 Yigal Chripun wrote:
 

 Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:

 Lutger wrote:


 Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:


 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
  

 This is my view (might not work, but I think it could).  For purposes
 of simplicity, I'll assume Walter currently develops the Phobos
 runtime (not that he doesn't, but I'm really not sure :).

 Maintenance of the merged runtime would become Walter's
 responsibility, with your help if necessary (ideas and help
 understanding, and enhancements if
 you wish).  Any changes desired for the runtime would go through
 Phobos (and
 Walter).  The Tango lib would use the now tango-fied Phobos runtime,
 with alias imports for existing code (e.g. tango.core.Thread would
 either publicly import std.thread or would privately import it, and
 alias the Thread class).


 Based on historical evidence, this doesn't sound like a particularly
 good idea. The current situation ensued for a reason.

 Also, I find that this discussion quite completely ignores the fact
 that DMD is not the only D compiler anymore, and Walter is not the only
 one with a vested interest in the functionality. In fact it looks like
 quite many of the Tango conference attendants wants to discuss the
 runtime.


 How does it ignore it? It sounds rather like the opposite to me: the
 very existence of multiple runtimes and the vested interest in those
 runtimes (Tango's primarily) are the key reason for unification.


 Unification, yes. You misunderstood my point, which is that the runtime
 implementation (not the compiler specific portion and direct language
 support) should, IMO, be independent. As long as Walter/DigitalMars is
 the developer of the language itself, it will be natural that eventual
 new features that the language requires from the runtime, will be
 bootstrapped by code from Walter, but I think Sean's work on the runtime
 in Tango shows that such initial implementation can have large potential
 for improvements.


  

 If there should be a common-common (not only "just" compatible)
 runtime, it shouldn't be controlled by one compiler vendor. Note that
 the Tango runtime consists of 3 parts, where only one is compiler
 specific. That particular part should probably be controlled/reviewed
 by the compiler vendor, the rest (GC, threading, other things) should
 be independent.


 I'll admit my understanding is limited, but I'd guess that will lead to
 even further fragmentation and non-portability.


 The compiler part would have to conform to the necessary interfaces, of
 course, but at some level the implementation details needs to be, and not
 all can be kept in the compiler itself, thus it must be somewhere in the
 runtime. I don't see this as a problem, just a necessary evil.


 I don't understand your point. are you suggesting that things like the
 GC will be independent from the compiler?
 It seems to me that the model suggested by Sean is the way to go:
 ie:

 my code
 ----------
 standard library user code and standardized APIs to the runtime
 (threading, etc
 ---------------------------------
 compiler + runtime A  | compiler + runtime B | .....


 if a user isn't satisfied by runtime/compiler A he should just switch
 vendors.
 All the user facing APIs are standardized in the stdlib so all is needed
 is to recompile..


 
 A common interface (API and ABI) would make this easier, but I just tend to
 think that a common implementation as long as possible would be even
 better - unification of efforts etc.
 


What's important to the end user IMHO is the API and ABI. having one
unified GC implementation (for example) independent of a specific vendor
 will remove some work from the compiler vendor but Id think this is
rather a bad thing. I prefer each vendor to provide his own GC
implementation (keeping with my example) which of course conforms to the
 standards (API, ABI, ...) so that I can change to a different vendor
easily without any changes to my code (all I need to do is recompile).
The benefit is that the vendors will compete for runtime performance
which is good for the end user. I can choose vendor A's GC since it is
more efficient with regards to memory (if I care for that) or vendor B's
GC if it's faster, etc..
All I care is that everything that is visible to the end user is
standardized - i.e. I can do GC.collect() in my code since it's in the
APIs and don't care if I use llvmdc, dil, dmd, gdc, etc.. ( I'll care
for performance reasons and such of course and for that I can just
switch to a different vendor without any code changes)
Aug 16 2008
parent reply Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
Yigal Chripun wrote:

 Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:

 Yigal Chripun wrote:


 Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:

 Lutger wrote:


 Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:


 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
  

 This is my view (might not work, but I think it could).  For purposes
 of simplicity, I'll assume Walter currently develops the Phobos
 runtime (not that he doesn't, but I'm really not sure :).

 Maintenance of the merged runtime would become Walter's
 responsibility, with your help if necessary (ideas and help
 understanding, and enhancements if
 you wish).  Any changes desired for the runtime would go through
 Phobos (and
 Walter).  The Tango lib would use the now tango-fied Phobos runtime,
 with alias imports for existing code (e.g. tango.core.Thread would
 either publicly import std.thread or would privately import it, and
 alias the Thread class).


 Based on historical evidence, this doesn't sound like a particularly
 good idea. The current situation ensued for a reason.

 Also, I find that this discussion quite completely ignores the fact
 that DMD is not the only D compiler anymore, and Walter is not the only
 one with a vested interest in the functionality. In fact it looks like
 quite many of the Tango conference attendants wants to discuss the
 runtime.


 How does it ignore it? It sounds rather like the opposite to me: the
 very existence of multiple runtimes and the vested interest in those
 runtimes (Tango's primarily) are the key reason for unification.


 Unification, yes. You misunderstood my point, which is that the runtime
 implementation (not the compiler specific portion and direct language
 support) should, IMO, be independent. As long as Walter/DigitalMars is
 the developer of the language itself, it will be natural that eventual
 new features that the language requires from the runtime, will be
 bootstrapped by code from Walter, but I think Sean's work on the runtime
 in Tango shows that such initial implementation can have large potential
 for improvements.


  

 If there should be a common-common (not only "just" compatible)
 runtime, it shouldn't be controlled by one compiler vendor. Note that
 the Tango runtime consists of 3 parts, where only one is compiler
 specific. That particular part should probably be controlled/reviewed
 by the compiler vendor, the rest (GC, threading, other things) should
 be independent.


 I'll admit my understanding is limited, but I'd guess that will lead to
 even further fragmentation and non-portability.


 The compiler part would have to conform to the necessary interfaces, of
 course, but at some level the implementation details needs to be, and not
 all can be kept in the compiler itself, thus it must be somewhere in the
 runtime. I don't see this as a problem, just a necessary evil.


 I don't understand your point. are you suggesting that things like the
 GC will be independent from the compiler?
 It seems to me that the model suggested by Sean is the way to go:
 ie:

 my code
 ----------
 standard library user code and standardized APIs to the runtime
 (threading, etc
 ---------------------------------
 compiler + runtime A  | compiler + runtime B | .....


 if a user isn't satisfied by runtime/compiler A he should just switch
 vendors.
 All the user facing APIs are standardized in the stdlib so all is needed
 is to recompile..


 A common interface (API and ABI) would make this easier, but I just tend to
 think that a common implementation as long as possible would be even
 better - unification of efforts etc.


 What's important to the end user IMHO is the API and ABI. having one
 unified GC implementation (for example) independent of a specific vendor
  will remove some work from the compiler vendor but Id think this is
 rather a bad thing. I prefer each vendor to provide his own GC
 implementation (keeping with my example) which of course conforms to the
  standards (API, ABI, ...) so that I can change to a different vendor
 easily without any changes to my code (all I need to do is recompile).


I'd prefer being able to choose the GC I want without needing the 
compiler vendor to supply it.  Otherwise, the compiler vendor either 
needs to know how to write a GC (unlikely) or they need to bundle a 
third-party GC.  Also, different applications have different memory 
requirements.  Tango allows the GC to be chosen at link-time, which 
allows for a great deal of flexibility.


 The benefit is that the vendors will compete for runtime performance
 which is good for the end user. I can choose vendor A's GC since it is
 more efficient with regards to memory (if I care for that) or vendor B's
 GC if it's faster, etc..


Better to choose the GC separately from the compiler, then, so you can 
use the best of breed of each.


 All I care is that everything that is visible to the end user is
 standardized - i.e. I can do GC.collect() in my code since it's in the
 APIs and don't care if I use llvmdc, dil, dmd, gdc, etc.. ( I'll care
 for performance reasons and such of course and for that I can just
 switch to a different vendor without any code changes)


This is a standard library issue not a compiler runtime or GC issue.


Sean
Aug 18 2008
parent reply Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com> writes:
Sean Kelly wrote:

 I'd prefer being able to choose the GC I want without needing the
 compiler vendor to supply it.  Otherwise, the compiler vendor either
 needs to know how to write a GC (unlikely) or they need to bundle a
 third-party GC.  Also, different applications have different memory
 requirements.  Tango allows the GC to be chosen at link-time, which
 allows for a great deal of flexibility. 


If we compare to Java than Sun provides more than one GC with its
runtime and you can get even more specialized version GC if you really
need it (real-time for example). I guess there's nothing wrong in
getting a third party GC either.
The point is that in Java those GCs are chosen by the runtime (you can
specify if you run your app as a server or a client app and based on
that the GC is chosen) or you can specify explicitly your GC too, I
guess. Non of that should affect your code (unless you choose to use
specific extensions to the GC API provided but a specialized GC).
So, the choice of a GC doesn't affect your code.


 

 The benefit is that the vendors will compete for runtime performance
 which is good for the end user. I can choose vendor A's GC since it is
 more efficient with regards to memory (if I care for that) or vendor B's
 GC if it's faster, etc..


 
 Better to choose the GC separately from the compiler, then, so you can
 use the best of breed of each.
 

 All I care is that everything that is visible to the end user is
 standardized - i.e. I can do GC.collect() in my code since it's in the
 APIs and don't care if I use llvmdc, dil, dmd, gdc, etc.. ( I'll care
 for performance reasons and such of course and for that I can just
 switch to a different vendor without any code changes)


 
 This is a standard library issue not a compiler runtime or GC issue.


it is an issue with the compiler runtime/GC if there isn't a standard
API and when I change my GC/runtime I need to edit the source.


 
 
 Sean
Aug 23 2008
next sibling parent reply Vincent Richomme <forumer smartmobili.com> writes:
Yigal Chripun a écrit :

 Sean Kelly wrote:
  > I'd prefer being able to choose the GC I want without needing the

 compiler vendor to supply it.  Otherwise, the compiler vendor either
 needs to know how to write a GC (unlikely) or they need to bundle a
 third-party GC.  Also, different applications have different memory
 requirements.  Tango allows the GC to be chosen at link-time, which
 allows for a great deal of flexibility. 


 
 If we compare to Java than Sun provides more than one GC with its
 runtime and you can get even more specialized version GC if you really
 need it (real-time for example). I guess there's nothing wrong in
 getting a third party GC either.
 The point is that in Java those GCs are chosen by the runtime (you can
 specify if you run your app as a server or a client app and based on
 that the GC is chosen) or you can specify explicitly your GC too, I
 guess. Non of that should affect your code (unless you choose to use
 specific extensions to the GC API provided but a specialized GC).
 So, the choice of a GC doesn't affect your code.
 

 The benefit is that the vendors will compete for runtime performance
 which is good for the end user. I can choose vendor A's GC since it is
 more efficient with regards to memory (if I care for that) or vendor B's
 GC if it's faster, etc..


 Better to choose the GC separately from the compiler, then, so you can
 use the best of breed of each.


 All I care is that everything that is visible to the end user is
 standardized - i.e. I can do GC.collect() in my code since it's in the
 APIs and don't care if I use llvmdc, dil, dmd, gdc, etc.. ( I'll care
 for performance reasons and such of course and for that I can just
 switch to a different vendor without any code changes)


 This is a standard library issue not a compiler runtime or GC issue.


 
 it is an issue with the compiler runtime/GC if there isn't a standard
 API and when I change my GC/runtime I need to edit the source.
 

 Sean




What I would like to know now:  is there any progress between this Tango 
vs Phobos discussion...
I still don't know if I can rely on Tango for my dev or on phobos and I 
think I am not the only one.
Aug 23 2008
next sibling parent reply Brian Price <blprice61 yahoo.com> writes:
My take on the Tango vs Phobos situation is:

For production use the only real choice is D1 (D2 being alpha) and it looks like
there are going to be so many changes in the language that going from a D1 app
to
a D2 app is going to require more than a bit of work and thought.

So, restricting the answer to D1, Tango seems to be a more full featured ,
robust,
and maintained library than Phobos.  I'd expect that to change in D2 and expect
the natural choice there will be Phobos (barring a ton of work by the Tango
crew).

Regardless of the choice of library for use with D1, moving to D2 with either
library looks like a chore since Phobos seems to be undergoing some (much
needed)
significant changes from D1 to D2 versions.

As to the larger topic, D is potentially caught on the horns of a dilemma: D1 is
not a significant enough advance on current languages to justify a move even if
there were no library concerns; D2 may well be enough of a step forward to
justify
a move but there is the issue of timing.  My take is that if the upcoming C++
standard makes it into compilers used in common production before D2 is ready
for
prime time that D may never gain a real foothold in mainstream use.  I'm hoping
that the D2 team sets a deadline and leaves some things for a future D3 rather
than miss the window of opportunity.

Brian
Aug 23 2008
parent reply Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
Brian Price wrote:

 My take on the Tango vs Phobos situation is:
 
 For production use the only real choice is D1 (D2 being alpha) and it looks
like
 there are going to be so many changes in the language that going from a D1 app
to
 a D2 app is going to require more than a bit of work and thought.


It's also worth mentioning that whatever is decided, no changes are 
likely to occur with D1 / Phobos1 because that version of D is frozen. 
So from a practical standpoint I think Tango and Tangobos will continue 
to be the preferred approach for development under D1.


 So, restricting the answer to D1, Tango seems to be a more full featured ,
robust,
 and maintained library than Phobos.  I'd expect that to change in D2 and expect
 the natural choice there will be Phobos (barring a ton of work by the Tango
crew).


Pretty much.  Though having some sort of shared runtime /may/ affect how 
some of the features in tango.core are exposed.  I would obviously 
prefer if Phobos just built on top of Tango as with the Tango / Tangobos 
solution for D1, but that doesn't seem likely to happen.


 Regardless of the choice of library for use with D1, moving to D2 with either
 library looks like a chore since Phobos seems to be undergoing some (much
needed)
 significant changes from D1 to D2 versions.


Yup.


 As to the larger topic, D is potentially caught on the horns of a dilemma: D1
is
 not a significant enough advance on current languages to justify a move even if
 there were no library concerns; D2 may well be enough of a step forward to
justify
 a move but there is the issue of timing.  My take is that if the upcoming C++
 standard makes it into compilers used in common production before D2 is ready
for
 prime time that D may never gain a real foothold in mainstream use.  I'm hoping
 that the D2 team sets a deadline and leaves some things for a future D3 rather
 than miss the window of opportunity.


In my opinion, the benefits of D1 over comparable mainstream languages 
are quite substantial but difficult to quantify.  The elegance of the 
language tends to produce vastly more maintainable code than C++, for 
example, which is a huge win for team development.

As far as D2 is concerned, I think it's really too early to say.  My 
current opinion is that the feature additions in D2 impact the syntax in 
such a way that they eliminate much of the advantage of D1--stemming 
from elegance and simplicity--in exchange for largely theoretical 
benefits.  But D2 is still in development so who knows.


Sean
Aug 25 2008
parent reply superdan <super dan.org> writes:
Sean Kelly Wrote:


 Brian Price wrote:

 My take on the Tango vs Phobos situation is:
 
 For production use the only real choice is D1 (D2 being alpha) and it looks
like
 there are going to be so many changes in the language that going from a D1 app
to
 a D2 app is going to require more than a bit of work and thought.


 
 It's also worth mentioning that whatever is decided, no changes are 
 likely to occur with D1 / Phobos1 because that version of D is frozen. 
 So from a practical standpoint I think Tango and Tangobos will continue 
 to be the preferred approach for development under D1.
 

 So, restricting the answer to D1, Tango seems to be a more full featured ,
robust,
 and maintained library than Phobos.  I'd expect that to change in D2 and expect
 the natural choice there will be Phobos (barring a ton of work by the Tango
crew).


 
 Pretty much.  Though having some sort of shared runtime /may/ affect how 
 some of the features in tango.core are exposed.  I would obviously 
 prefer if Phobos just built on top of Tango as with the Tango / Tangobos 
 solution for D1, but that doesn't seem likely to happen.


glad to hear that. there's quite a few of us who aren't quite fans of tango.
i'd rather wait for bartosh walt & andrei to put their weight behind phobos2. 


 Regardless of the choice of library for use with D1, moving to D2 with either
 library looks like a chore since Phobos seems to be undergoing some (much
needed)
 significant changes from D1 to D2 versions.


 
 Yup.
 

 As to the larger topic, D is potentially caught on the horns of a dilemma: D1
is
 not a significant enough advance on current languages to justify a move even if
 there were no library concerns; D2 may well be enough of a step forward to
justify
 a move but there is the issue of timing.  My take is that if the upcoming C++
 standard makes it into compilers used in common production before D2 is ready
for
 prime time that D may never gain a real foothold in mainstream use.  I'm hoping
 that the D2 team sets a deadline and leaves some things for a future D3 rather
 than miss the window of opportunity.


 
 In my opinion, the benefits of D1 over comparable mainstream languages 
 are quite substantial but difficult to quantify.  The elegance of the 
 language tends to produce vastly more maintainable code than C++, for 
 example, which is a huge win for team development.
 
 As far as D2 is concerned, I think it's really too early to say.  My 
 current opinion is that the feature additions in D2 impact the syntax in 
 such a way that they eliminate much of the advantage of D1--stemming 
 from elegance and simplicity--in exchange for largely theoretical 
 benefits.  But D2 is still in development so who knows.


u realize if u don't want that to look like fud u better back that up. i mean
we could be sittin' on our ass and muse on them theoretical & practical issues.
or we could write d2 and bring real arguments to the table. so how much d2 code
have you written. i know i switched to d2 as soon as it was out. i have nuff
freedom   work to write at least part of my code in whatever. the more versions
arrive with new stuff the more d1 looks to me like an ass-backwards neanderthal
tool made of sticks bear claws and silex. could even go as far as sayin' d1
ain't ever gonna make it to prime time. it's just a cute lil language that has
a few merits marred by its issues. all languages are like that. d2... d2 feels
different because it is different. larger ambitions to address real problems in
innovative ways. and leave no shit behind like most languages do in pursuit of
the mother of all features. and the new team has much more knowledge than walt
alone. (sorry walt. but i guess u'd agree.)

so sean. how much d2 did you write. hope you agree it's hard to claim it has no
practical advantages if you haven't practically used it. the irony, eh.
Aug 25 2008
next sibling parent reply Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
superdan wrote:

 Sean Kelly Wrote:
 

 Brian Price wrote:

 My take on the Tango vs Phobos situation is:

 For production use the only real choice is D1 (D2 being alpha) and it looks
like
 there are going to be so many changes in the language that going from a D1 app
to
 a D2 app is going to require more than a bit of work and thought.


 It's also worth mentioning that whatever is decided, no changes are 
 likely to occur with D1 / Phobos1 because that version of D is frozen. 
 So from a practical standpoint I think Tango and Tangobos will continue 
 to be the preferred approach for development under D1.


 So, restricting the answer to D1, Tango seems to be a more full featured ,
robust,
 and maintained library than Phobos.  I'd expect that to change in D2 and expect
 the natural choice there will be Phobos (barring a ton of work by the Tango
crew).


 Pretty much.  Though having some sort of shared runtime /may/ affect how 
 some of the features in tango.core are exposed.  I would obviously 
 prefer if Phobos just built on top of Tango as with the Tango / Tangobos 
 solution for D1, but that doesn't seem likely to happen.


 
 glad to hear that. there's quite a few of us who aren't quite fans of tango.
i'd rather wait for bartosh walt & andrei to put their weight behind phobos2. 
 

 Regardless of the choice of library for use with D1, moving to D2 with either
 library looks like a chore since Phobos seems to be undergoing some (much
needed)
 significant changes from D1 to D2 versions.


 Yup.


 As to the larger topic, D is potentially caught on the horns of a dilemma: D1
is
 not a significant enough advance on current languages to justify a move even if
 there were no library concerns; D2 may well be enough of a step forward to
justify
 a move but there is the issue of timing.  My take is that if the upcoming C++
 standard makes it into compilers used in common production before D2 is ready
for
 prime time that D may never gain a real foothold in mainstream use.  I'm hoping
 that the D2 team sets a deadline and leaves some things for a future D3 rather
 than miss the window of opportunity.


 In my opinion, the benefits of D1 over comparable mainstream languages 
 are quite substantial but difficult to quantify.  The elegance of the 
 language tends to produce vastly more maintainable code than C++, for 
 example, which is a huge win for team development.

 As far as D2 is concerned, I think it's really too early to say.  My 
 current opinion is that the feature additions in D2 impact the syntax in 
 such a way that they eliminate much of the advantage of D1--stemming 
 from elegance and simplicity--in exchange for largely theoretical 
 benefits.  But D2 is still in development so who knows.


 
 u realize if u don't want that to look like fud u better back that up. i mean
we could be sittin' on our ass and muse on them theoretical & practical issues.
or we could write d2 and bring real arguments to the table. so how much d2 code
have you written.


A bit.  I ported the Tango runtime to D2 once.  The rest comes from 
parallels with C++.  For example, one of my major issues with D2 is the 
syntax of the const design.  It's theoretically pretty slick, but I'm 
not at all happy with the prospect of maintaining duplicate function 
implementations simply to overload on const.  This is one of the things 
that drove me crazy about C++, and D2 is even worse in this regard 
because it has not only 'const' but 'invariant' as well.  And don't say 
"don't like const, don't use it," because that isn't an option for me as 
a library developer.

Another issue is more to do with code portability than with D2 itself. 
That is, the meaning of 'const' has changed between D1 and D2, with 
'invariant' effectively replacing what 'const' was used for in D1.  This 
makes it impossible to create code that has the same meaning in both 
versions of the language.  Eventually, D1 will be forgotten and no one 
will care about this any more, but for Tango right now this is a 
significant issue in my opinion.

Much of the rest is cosmetic--the sort of thing Walter likes to call 
"barn door" issues.  I hate that we're stuck with 'enum' to signify 
manifest constants, for example.  Heck, I hate that D supports anonymous 
enums at all, but making this an official feature in D2 is just crazy 
IMO.  Maybe not a big deal to you, but what drew me to D in the first 
place were largely what I'd consider cosmetic improvements over C++.


 i know i switched to d2 as soon as it was out. i have nuff freedom  
 work to write at least part of my code in whatever. the more versions
 arrive with new stuff the more d1 looks to me like an ass-backwards
 neanderthal tool made of sticks bear claws and silex. could even go as
 far as sayin' d1 ain't ever gonna make it to prime time. it's just a
 cute lil language that has a few merits marred by its issues. all
 languages  are like that. d2... d2 feels different because it is
 different. larger ambitions to address real problems in innovative
 ways.  and leave no shit behind like most languages do
 in pursuit of the mother of all features.
 and the new team has much more knowledge than walt alone. (sorry
 walt. but i guess u'd agree.)


Yeah, D1 is a cute little language, but it's eminently usable.  All D2 
really has going for it at the moment is the const stuff, and I quite 
honestly don't care about that.  This isn't because I don't work on 
projects large enough to require it--my last project was a few million 
lines of C++ maintained by a decent sized team--but rather because I 
feel that inelegant syntax is a greater issue for maintenance than 
language support for data mutability.  I'd simply rather have nothing 
than something that I think will produce unmaintainable code.


 so sean. how much d2 did you write. hope you agree it's hard to claim it has
no practical advantages if you haven't practically used it. the irony, eh.


Not enough to speak with experience, quite honestly.  Perhaps that will 
chance with this shared runtime business.


Sean
Aug 25 2008
next sibling parent reply superdan <super dan.org> writes:
Sean Kelly Wrote:


 superdan wrote:

 Sean Kelly Wrote:
 

 Brian Price wrote:

 My take on the Tango vs Phobos situation is:

 For production use the only real choice is D1 (D2 being alpha) and it looks
like
 there are going to be so many changes in the language that going from a D1 app
to
 a D2 app is going to require more than a bit of work and thought.


 It's also worth mentioning that whatever is decided, no changes are 
 likely to occur with D1 / Phobos1 because that version of D is frozen. 
 So from a practical standpoint I think Tango and Tangobos will continue 
 to be the preferred approach for development under D1.


 So, restricting the answer to D1, Tango seems to be a more full featured ,
robust,
 and maintained library than Phobos.  I'd expect that to change in D2 and expect
 the natural choice there will be Phobos (barring a ton of work by the Tango
crew).


 Pretty much.  Though having some sort of shared runtime /may/ affect how 
 some of the features in tango.core are exposed.  I would obviously 
 prefer if Phobos just built on top of Tango as with the Tango / Tangobos 
 solution for D1, but that doesn't seem likely to happen.


 
 glad to hear that. there's quite a few of us who aren't quite fans of tango.
i'd rather wait for bartosh walt & andrei to put their weight behind phobos2. 
 

 Regardless of the choice of library for use with D1, moving to D2 with either
 library looks like a chore since Phobos seems to be undergoing some (much
needed)
 significant changes from D1 to D2 versions.


 Yup.


 As to the larger topic, D is potentially caught on the horns of a dilemma: D1
is
 not a significant enough advance on current languages to justify a move even if
 there were no library concerns; D2 may well be enough of a step forward to
justify
 a move but there is the issue of timing.  My take is that if the upcoming C++
 standard makes it into compilers used in common production before D2 is ready
for
 prime time that D may never gain a real foothold in mainstream use.  I'm hoping
 that the D2 team sets a deadline and leaves some things for a future D3 rather
 than miss the window of opportunity.


 In my opinion, the benefits of D1 over comparable mainstream languages 
 are quite substantial but difficult to quantify.  The elegance of the 
 language tends to produce vastly more maintainable code than C++, for 
 example, which is a huge win for team development.

 As far as D2 is concerned, I think it's really too early to say.  My 
 current opinion is that the feature additions in D2 impact the syntax in 
 such a way that they eliminate much of the advantage of D1--stemming 
 from elegance and simplicity--in exchange for largely theoretical 
 benefits.  But D2 is still in development so who knows.


 
 u realize if u don't want that to look like fud u better back that up. i mean
we could be sittin' on our ass and muse on them theoretical & practical issues.
or we could write d2 and bring real arguments to the table. so how much d2 code
have you written.


 
 A bit.  I ported the Tango runtime to D2 once.  The rest comes from 
 parallels with C++.  For example, one of my major issues with D2 is the 
 syntax of the const design.  It's theoretically pretty slick, but I'm 
 not at all happy with the prospect of maintaining duplicate function 
 implementations simply to overload on const.  This is one of the things 
 that drove me crazy about C++, and D2 is even worse in this regard 
 because it has not only 'const' but 'invariant' as well.  And don't say 
 "don't like const, don't use it," because that isn't an option for me as 
 a library developer.


not sure why you keep on sneaking that `theoretically' word in. duplicate code
blows, theoretically and practically. yeah that pisses me off too. i managed to
avoid duplication thru concepts. dont 4get u only need to do that when you want
the qualifier in the return type. often you don't. you can also rely on auto
because now it deduces the return type for you.

i recall walter promised he'll look into that. but i'm not holding my breath
eh. constrained templates do the work for me no problem.


 Another issue is more to do with code portability than with D2 itself. 
 That is, the meaning of 'const' has changed between D1 and D2, with 
 'invariant' effectively replacing what 'const' was used for in D1.  This 
 makes it impossible to create code that has the same meaning in both 
 versions of the language.  Eventually, D1 will be forgotten and no one 
 will care about this any more, but for Tango right now this is a 
 significant issue in my opinion.


look   the full half. for tango right now it's an issue. tomorrow it won't.


 Much of the rest is cosmetic--the sort of thing Walter likes to call 
 "barn door" issues.  I hate that we're stuck with 'enum' to signify 
 manifest constants, for example.  Heck, I hate that D supports anonymous 
 enums at all, but making this an official feature in D2 is just crazy 
 IMO.  Maybe not a big deal to you, but what drew me to D in the first 
 place were largely what I'd consider cosmetic improvements over C++.


it's a big issue to me just in the opposite direction. the c enum is brain
damaged. even dennis ritchie so much as acknowledged it. (and he won't budge on
the definition syntax. so i guess that does mean somethin'.) the c++ enum grew
one lonely neuron. problem is we got just used to the wrong. we won't blink an
eye at

enum { a = 1, b = 2 };

but we get pissed at

enum { a = 1.1, b = 2.5 };

i myself was pissed to no end there was no way to define true constants in c++.
so im super happy walter fixed that. how others can actually have a problem
with that is beyond me.

i had an old ford when i was a kid. it had a fidgety starter. only dad and i
could start the car. just like in bttf. one day i'd opened it already so i
fixed the starter. guess what. somehow i missed the old bad starter. i'd gotten
used to it. but then i had a reason. now sis could start the car too.

enum ain't a problem. get over urself already.


  > i know i switched to d2 as soon as it was out. i have nuff freedom  
  > work to write at least part of my code in whatever. the more versions
  > arrive with new stuff the more d1 looks to me like an ass-backwards
  > neanderthal tool made of sticks bear claws and silex. could even go as
  > far as sayin' d1 ain't ever gonna make it to prime time. it's just a
  > cute lil language that has a few merits marred by its issues. all

 languages  are like that. d2... d2 feels different because it is


  > different. larger ambitions to address real problems in innovative

 ways.  and leave no shit behind like most languages do


  > in pursuit of the mother of all features.
  > and the new team has much more knowledge than walt alone. (sorry
  > walt. but i guess u'd agree.)
 
 Yeah, D1 is a cute little language, but it's eminently usable.  All D2 
 really has going for it at the moment is the const stuff, and I quite 
 honestly don't care about that.


you gotta be intercoursin' kiddin' me. hellooo. concepts. i came to the point
where i call bullsolidwaste on unconstrained templates. all templates should be
constrained. also destructors and the postblit business. now i can have
automatic cleanup like in c++. better yet there's gc so i dun need to clean up
a lot of stuff. only files'n stuff.

guess someone's not keepin' with'em news.


  This isn't because I don't work on 
 projects large enough to require it--my last project was a few million 
 lines of C++ maintained by a decent sized team--but rather because I 
 feel that inelegant syntax is a greater issue for maintenance than 
 language support for data mutability.  I'd simply rather have nothing 
 than something that I think will produce unmaintainable code.
 

 so sean. how much d2 did you write. hope you agree it's hard to claim it has
no practical advantages if you haven't practically used it. the irony, eh.


 
 Not enough to speak with experience, quite honestly.  Perhaps that will 
 chance with this shared runtime business.


then quite honestly ur naysayin' is tenuous.
Aug 25 2008
next sibling parent reply Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight gmail.com> writes:
superdan wrote:

 it's a big issue to me just in the opposite direction. the c enum is brain
damaged. even dennis ritchie so much as acknowledged it. (and he won't budge on
the definition syntax. so i guess that does mean somethin'.) the c++ enum grew
one lonely neuron. problem is we got just used to the wrong. we won't blink an
eye at
 
 enum { a = 1, b = 2 };
 
 but we get pissed at
 
 enum { a = 1.1, b = 2.5 };


I see the first as a problem, too. An enum is an _enumeration_. It 
should not be abused for bitfields, masks, constants or anything else. 

actually syntactic sugar for a class...):

- Only named enums are supported (otherwise, what are you enumerating?)
- They can't be used as bitfields/masks (constants can be used for this 
purpose)
- You can't define them as arbitrary values.

In D, it's all water under the bridge and it's just a keyword; it 
doesn't matter that much. That being said, it's still a bad selection of 
keyword IMO and there's no argument that's going to convince me that 
`enum string CRLF = "\r\n";` is somehow an _enumeration_.
Aug 25 2008
next sibling parent reply superdan <super dan.org> writes:
Robert Fraser Wrote:


 superdan wrote:

 it's a big issue to me just in the opposite direction. the c enum is brain
damaged. even dennis ritchie so much as acknowledged it. (and he won't budge on
the definition syntax. so i guess that does mean somethin'.) the c++ enum grew
one lonely neuron. problem is we got just used to the wrong. we won't blink an
eye at
 
 enum { a = 1, b = 2 };
 
 but we get pissed at
 
 enum { a = 1.1, b = 2.5 };


 
 I see the first as a problem, too. An enum is an _enumeration_.


yeah. an enumerated type to be pedantic. as in, let me enumerate some stuff. i
don't see an integer following from that.


 It 
 should not be abused for bitfields, masks, constants or anything else. 


that's not an abuse. it's just use.

let me enumerate some math constants.

enum math_constants
{
    pi = 3.14,
    e = 2.71,
    avocado = 6.023e-23,
}

there was no abuse, your honor.



 actually syntactic sugar for a class...):
 
 - Only named enums are supported (otherwise, what are you enumerating?)


i am enumerating symbolic constants that logically belong together but don't
have the same type.


 - They can't be used as bitfields/masks (constants can be used for this 
 purpose)


but enums are constants. so it looks like those doods got it all wrong because
they have two concepts for the same thing.


 - You can't define them as arbitrary values.


how do you mean that. must pi be 10./3. or what.


 In D, it's all water under the bridge and it's just a keyword; it 
 doesn't matter that much. That being said, it's still a bad selection of 
 keyword IMO and there's no argument that's going to convince me that 
 `enum string CRLF = "\r\n";` is somehow an _enumeration_.


no but if you put it like this maybe it changes your perspective.

enum line_terminator
{
    crlf = "\r\n",
    cr = "\r",
    lf = "\n",
    lfcr = "\n\r"
}

eh.
Aug 25 2008
parent Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
superdan wrote:

 Robert Fraser Wrote:
 

 superdan wrote:

 it's a big issue to me just in the opposite direction. the c enum is brain
damaged. even dennis ritchie so much as acknowledged it. (and he won't budge on
the definition syntax. so i guess that does mean somethin'.) the c++ enum grew
one lonely neuron. problem is we got just used to the wrong. we won't blink an
eye at

 enum { a = 1, b = 2 };

 but we get pissed at

 enum { a = 1.1, b = 2.5 };


 I see the first as a problem, too. An enum is an _enumeration_.


 
 yeah. an enumerated type to be pedantic. as in, let me enumerate some stuff. i
don't see an integer following from that.



That's fine.  I'd be okay with enumerated types containing floating 
point values, strings, whatever.  But they should always have a name. 
Using them to declare globally usable constants is just wrongheaded.


 It 
 should not be abused for bitfields, masks, constants or anything else. 


 
 that's not an abuse. it's just use.
 
 let me enumerate some math constants.
 
 enum math_constants
 {
     pi = 3.14,
     e = 2.71,
     avocado = 6.023e-23,
 }
 
 there was no abuse, your honor.
 


 actually syntactic sugar for a class...):

 - Only named enums are supported (otherwise, what are you enumerating?)


 
 i am enumerating symbolic constants that logically belong together but don't
have the same type.


Yeah, I see what you're saying.  I'd say that it's logically a mis-use 
of 'enum', but it does the trick.


 - They can't be used as bitfields/masks (constants can be used for this 
 purpose)


 
 but enums are constants. so it looks like those doods got it all wrong because
they have two concepts for the same thing.


I disagree.  An enum is a constrained type.  Each element of an enum 
does happen to be a constant, but so what.  More general constrained 
types would be similar:

     int[0..5] x; // an integer required to be between 0 and 5


Sean
Aug 26 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent Christopher Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> writes:
Robert Fraser wrote:

 I see the first as a problem, too. An enum is an _enumeration_. It 
 should not be abused for bitfields, masks, constants or anything else. 

 actually syntactic sugar for a class...):
 
 - Only named enums are supported (otherwise, what are you enumerating?)
 - They can't be used as bitfields/masks (constants can be used for this 
 purpose)
 - You can't define them as arbitrary values.




[Flags] // hint to the compiler: treat it as a bitfield
public enum DaysOfWeek
{
	Monday = 1,
	Tuesday = 2,
	Wednesday = 4,
	Thursday = 8,
	Friday = 16,
	Saturday = 32,
	Sunday = 64,
	None = 0,
	All = 127
}

DaysOfWeek weekends = DaysOfWeek.Saturday | DaysOfWeek.Sunday;


 In D, it's all water under the bridge and it's just a keyword; it 
 doesn't matter that much. That being said, it's still a bad selection of 
 keyword IMO and there's no argument that's going to convince me that 
 `enum string CRLF = "\r\n";` is somehow an _enumeration_.


You wouldn't get to the keyword "enum" just from the definition of 
"enumeration". But it's not too far from the previous usage.
Aug 25 2008
prev sibling parent Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
Robert Fraser wrote:

 superdan wrote:

 it's a big issue to me just in the opposite direction. the c enum is 
 brain damaged. even dennis ritchie so much as acknowledged it. (and he 
 won't budge on the definition syntax. so i guess that does mean 
 somethin'.) the c++ enum grew one lonely neuron. problem is we got 
 just used to the wrong. we won't blink an eye at

 enum { a = 1, b = 2 };

 but we get pissed at

 enum { a = 1.1, b = 2.5 };


 
 I see the first as a problem, too. An enum is an _enumeration_. It 
 should not be abused for bitfields, masks, constants or anything else. 

 actually syntactic sugar for a class...):
 
 - Only named enums are supported (otherwise, what are you enumerating?)
 - They can't be used as bitfields/masks (constants can be used for this 
 purpose)
 - You can't define them as arbitrary values.
 
 In D, it's all water under the bridge and it's just a keyword; it 
 doesn't matter that much. That being said, it's still a bad selection of 
 keyword IMO and there's no argument that's going to convince me that 
 `enum string CRLF = "\r\n";` is somehow an _enumeration_.


Right.  I simply disagree with the suggestion that a label is a label 
and we should forget about it and move on.  If a word is used to 
represent something then the representation should be consistent with 
the meaning of the word, not some outdated convention from a language 
where the feature is considered a mistake anyway.  I'd prefer to take 
the long view... when teaching D to college students in 10 years, what 
kind of answer is "well, it derives from a broken convention in a 
language you've never heard of" to the question "why does D use 'enum' 
to represent manifest constants?"  However, I realize this will never 
change so I'll suppress my angst and move on ;-)


Sean
Aug 26 2008
prev sibling parent reply Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
superdan wrote:

 Sean Kelly Wrote:
 

 superdan wrote:

 Sean Kelly Wrote:


 Brian Price wrote:

 My take on the Tango vs Phobos situation is:

 For production use the only real choice is D1 (D2 being alpha) and it looks
like
 there are going to be so many changes in the language that going from a D1 app
to
 a D2 app is going to require more than a bit of work and thought.


 It's also worth mentioning that whatever is decided, no changes are 
 likely to occur with D1 / Phobos1 because that version of D is frozen. 
 So from a practical standpoint I think Tango and Tangobos will continue 
 to be the preferred approach for development under D1.


 So, restricting the answer to D1, Tango seems to be a more full featured ,
robust,
 and maintained library than Phobos.  I'd expect that to change in D2 and expect
 the natural choice there will be Phobos (barring a ton of work by the Tango
crew).


 Pretty much.  Though having some sort of shared runtime /may/ affect how 
 some of the features in tango.core are exposed.  I would obviously 
 prefer if Phobos just built on top of Tango as with the Tango / Tangobos 
 solution for D1, but that doesn't seem likely to happen.


 glad to hear that. there's quite a few of us who aren't quite fans of tango.
i'd rather wait for bartosh walt & andrei to put their weight behind phobos2. 


 Regardless of the choice of library for use with D1, moving to D2 with either
 library looks like a chore since Phobos seems to be undergoing some (much
needed)
 significant changes from D1 to D2 versions.


 Yup.


 As to the larger topic, D is potentially caught on the horns of a dilemma: D1
is
 not a significant enough advance on current languages to justify a move even if
 there were no library concerns; D2 may well be enough of a step forward to
justify
 a move but there is the issue of timing.  My take is that if the upcoming C++
 standard makes it into compilers used in common production before D2 is ready
for
 prime time that D may never gain a real foothold in mainstream use.  I'm hoping
 that the D2 team sets a deadline and leaves some things for a future D3 rather
 than miss the window of opportunity.


 In my opinion, the benefits of D1 over comparable mainstream languages 
 are quite substantial but difficult to quantify.  The elegance of the 
 language tends to produce vastly more maintainable code than C++, for 
 example, which is a huge win for team development.

 As far as D2 is concerned, I think it's really too early to say.  My 
 current opinion is that the feature additions in D2 impact the syntax in 
 such a way that they eliminate much of the advantage of D1--stemming 
 from elegance and simplicity--in exchange for largely theoretical 
 benefits.  But D2 is still in development so who knows.


 u realize if u don't want that to look like fud u better back that up. i mean
we could be sittin' on our ass and muse on them theoretical & practical issues.
or we could write d2 and bring real arguments to the table. so how much d2 code
have you written.


 A bit.  I ported the Tango runtime to D2 once.  The rest comes from 
 parallels with C++.  For example, one of my major issues with D2 is the 
 syntax of the const design.  It's theoretically pretty slick, but I'm 
 not at all happy with the prospect of maintaining duplicate function 
 implementations simply to overload on const.  This is one of the things 
 that drove me crazy about C++, and D2 is even worse in this regard 
 because it has not only 'const' but 'invariant' as well.  And don't say 
 "don't like const, don't use it," because that isn't an option for me as 
 a library developer.


 
 not sure why you keep on sneaking that `theoretically' word in. duplicate code
blows, theoretically and practically. yeah that pisses me off too. i managed to
avoid duplication thru concepts. dont 4get u only need to do that when you want
the qualifier in the return type. often you don't. you can also rely on auto
because now it deduces the return type for you.
 
 i recall walter promised he'll look into that. but i'm not holding my breath
eh. constrained templates do the work for me no problem.
 

 Another issue is more to do with code portability than with D2 itself. 
 That is, the meaning of 'const' has changed between D1 and D2, with 
 'invariant' effectively replacing what 'const' was used for in D1.  This 
 makes it impossible to create code that has the same meaning in both 
 versions of the language.  Eventually, D1 will be forgotten and no one 
 will care about this any more, but for Tango right now this is a 
 significant issue in my opinion.


 
 look   the full half. for tango right now it's an issue. tomorrow it won't.
 

 Much of the rest is cosmetic--the sort of thing Walter likes to call 
 "barn door" issues.  I hate that we're stuck with 'enum' to signify 
 manifest constants, for example.  Heck, I hate that D supports anonymous 
 enums at all, but making this an official feature in D2 is just crazy 
 IMO.  Maybe not a big deal to you, but what drew me to D in the first 
 place were largely what I'd consider cosmetic improvements over C++.


 
 it's a big issue to me just in the opposite direction. the c enum is brain
damaged. even dennis ritchie so much as acknowledged it. (and he won't budge on
the definition syntax. so i guess that does mean somethin'.) the c++ enum grew
one lonely neuron. problem is we got just used to the wrong. we won't blink an
eye at
 
 enum { a = 1, b = 2 };
 
 but we get pissed at
 
 enum { a = 1.1, b = 2.5 };
 
 i myself was pissed to no end there was no way to define true constants in
c++. so im super happy walter fixed that. how others can actually have a
problem with that is beyond me.
 
 i had an old ford when i was a kid. it had a fidgety starter. only dad and i
could start the car. just like in bttf. one day i'd opened it already so i
fixed the starter. guess what. somehow i missed the old bad starter. i'd gotten
used to it. but then i had a reason. now sis could start the car too.
 
 enum ain't a problem. get over urself already.


My problem isn't with the concept, it's with the word.  That's why I 
said it's a "barn door" issue.  To me, the meaning of 'enum' is 
"enumerated type."  It has nothing to do with declaring manifest 
constants.  That's why I also think that anonymous enums should be 
illegal.  Just give us a new label for this stuff ("manifest" was 
proposed).  Or heck, make constants not addressable and eliminate 
storage for the altogether.  I can't think of a single instance in my 
time as a programmer where I actually wanted to take the address of a 
constant.  What's the point?  You can't modify it anyway.


  > i know i switched to d2 as soon as it was out. i have nuff freedom  
  > work to write at least part of my code in whatever. the more versions
  > arrive with new stuff the more d1 looks to me like an ass-backwards
  > neanderthal tool made of sticks bear claws and silex. could even go as
  > far as sayin' d1 ain't ever gonna make it to prime time. it's just a
  > cute lil language that has a few merits marred by its issues. all

 languages  are like that. d2... d2 feels different because it is


  > different. larger ambitions to address real problems in innovative

 ways.  and leave no shit behind like most languages do


  > in pursuit of the mother of all features.
  > and the new team has much more knowledge than walt alone. (sorry
  > walt. but i guess u'd agree.)

 Yeah, D1 is a cute little language, but it's eminently usable.  All D2 
 really has going for it at the moment is the const stuff, and I quite 
 honestly don't care about that.


 
 you gotta be intercoursin' kiddin' me. hellooo. concepts. i came to the point
where i call bullsolidwaste on unconstrained templates. all templates should be
constrained. also destructors and the postblit business. now i can have
automatic cleanup like in c++. better yet there's gc so i dun need to clean up
a lot of stuff. only files'n stuff.


Concepts can be done in D1 as well.  The D2 stuff is just syntactic 
sugar for:

     void fn(T, bool cond : true = SomeTest!(T))( T val ) {}

I've been doing this sort of thing in Tango forever.  That isn't to say 
that I don't want real concept support--I totally do--it just isn't 
worth some of the other baggage in D2 right now.  Tell you the truth, 
what I probably want most from D2 is overload sets.  Function 
overloading in D1 just plain sucks and is a constant annoyance for me. 
Fixing this alone is enough to make me put up with a lot of other stuff 
I don't like.  But on the flip side I can't actually use it yet because 
Tango has to work on D1 as well.


 guess someone's not keepin' with'em news.


Nah.  I only care about features I can't fake in D1 already.


  This isn't because I don't work on 
 projects large enough to require it--my last project was a few million 
 lines of C++ maintained by a decent sized team--but rather because I 
 feel that inelegant syntax is a greater issue for maintenance than 
 language support for data mutability.  I'd simply rather have nothing 
 than something that I think will produce unmaintainable code.


 so sean. how much d2 did you write. hope you agree it's hard to claim it has
no practical advantages if you haven't practically used it. the irony, eh.


 Not enough to speak with experience, quite honestly.  Perhaps that will 
 chance with this shared runtime business.


 
 then quite honestly ur naysayin' is tenuous.


I said at the start that it's my current opinion and may change, so 
yeah, it's totally tenuous.


Sean
Aug 26 2008
parent superdan <super dan.org> writes:
Sean Kelly Wrote:


 superdan wrote:

 enum ain't a problem. get over urself already.


 
 My problem isn't with the concept, it's with the word.  That's why I 
 said it's a "barn door" issue.  To me, the meaning of 'enum' is 
 "enumerated type."  It has nothing to do with declaring manifest 
 constants. 


guess u have to retake the driving test then. enumerated type means: i
enumerate this type's possible values. they are necessarily constants. and
since they are there they are manifest. viola. da gamba.


 That's why I also think that anonymous enums should be 
 illegal.


then anonymous classes should be illegal too?


  Just give us a new label for this stuff ("manifest" was 
 proposed).


talkin' about that long view of yers. imagine teaching kids. hey-hey, kids.
today we do constant definitions. well, we sure aren't lackin'em. the more the
merrier.

const a = 1;
invariant a = 1;
enum { a = 1 }
manifest a = 1;


teacher: in this case none.

teacher: in all cases none.

teacher: they have different meanings as we talked yesterday in the megacore
class.

teacher: oops, bell's ringin'. don't forget the homework for tomorrow:
implement opIndex in o(n).


  Or heck, make constants not addressable and eliminate 
 storage for the altogether.


that ruins everything about const.


  I can't think of a single instance in my 
 time as a programmer where I actually wanted to take the address of a 
 constant.  What's the point?  You can't modify it anyway.


taking a slice off a const string.


  > i know i switched to d2 as soon as it was out. i have nuff freedom  
  > work to write at least part of my code in whatever. the more versions
  > arrive with new stuff the more d1 looks to me like an ass-backwards
  > neanderthal tool made of sticks bear claws and silex. could even go as
  > far as sayin' d1 ain't ever gonna make it to prime time. it's just a
  > cute lil language that has a few merits marred by its issues. all

 languages  are like that. d2... d2 feels different because it is


  > different. larger ambitions to address real problems in innovative

 ways.  and leave no shit behind like most languages do


  > in pursuit of the mother of all features.
  > and the new team has much more knowledge than walt alone. (sorry
  > walt. but i guess u'd agree.)

 Yeah, D1 is a cute little language, but it's eminently usable.  All D2 
 really has going for it at the moment is the const stuff, and I quite 
 honestly don't care about that.


 
 you gotta be intercoursin' kiddin' me. hellooo. concepts. i came to the point
where i call bullsolidwaste on unconstrained templates. all templates should be
constrained. also destructors and the postblit business. now i can have
automatic cleanup like in c++. better yet there's gc so i dun need to clean up
a lot of stuff. only files'n stuff.


 
 Concepts can be done in D1 as well.  The D2 stuff is just syntactic 
 sugar for:
 
      void fn(T, bool cond : true = SomeTest!(T))( T val ) {}
 
 I've been doing this sort of thing in Tango forever.  That isn't to say 
 that I don't want real concept support--I totally do--it just isn't 
 worth some of the other baggage in D2 right now.


see here's some fud again.


  Tell you the truth, 
 what I probably want most from D2 is overload sets.  Function 
 overloading in D1 just plain sucks and is a constant annoyance for me. 
 Fixing this alone is enough to make me put up with a lot of other stuff 
 I don't like.  But on the flip side I can't actually use it yet because 
 Tango has to work on D1 as well.


overload sets are cool. guess if i were a shrink i'd say ur beef with d2 is
that u have this tango/d1 worry hangin' over ya.


 guess someone's not keepin' with'em news.


 
 Nah.  I only care about features I can't fake in D1 already.
 

  This isn't because I don't work on 
 projects large enough to require it--my last project was a few million 
 lines of C++ maintained by a decent sized team--but rather because I 
 feel that inelegant syntax is a greater issue for maintenance than 
 language support for data mutability.  I'd simply rather have nothing 
 than something that I think will produce unmaintainable code.


 so sean. how much d2 did you write. hope you agree it's hard to claim it has
no practical advantages if you haven't practically used it. the irony, eh.


 Not enough to speak with experience, quite honestly.  Perhaps that will 
 chance with this shared runtime business.


 
 then quite honestly ur naysayin' is tenuous.


 
 I said at the start that it's my current opinion and may change, so 
 yeah, it's totally tenuous.


cool. then guess u can help it.
Aug 26 2008
prev sibling parent Jason House <jason.james.house gmail.com> writes:
Sean Kelly wrote:
 

 Another issue is more to do with code portability than with D2 itself.
 That is, the meaning of 'const' has changed between D1 and D2, with
 'invariant' effectively replacing what 'const' was used for in D1.  This
 makes it impossible to create code that has the same meaning in both
 versions of the language.



What if D1 was augmented to allow the keyword invariant in those cases where
D2 has a conflicting meaning for const?  That wouldn't break any D1 code or
add any functionality.  I think it's a fair request.
Aug 25 2008
prev sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
superdan wrote:

 d2... d2 feels different because it is
 different. larger ambitions to address real problems in innovative
 ways. and leave no shit behind like most languages do in pursuit of
 the mother of all features. and the new team has much more knowledge
 than walt alone. (sorry walt. but i guess u'd agree.)


I would agree. D1 was about at the limit of my abilities. D2 goes way 
beyond that, and that is possible because it is much more of a team effort.
Aug 25 2008
prev sibling parent Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
Vincent Richomme wrote:

 Yigal Chripun a écrit :

 Sean Kelly wrote:
  > I'd prefer being able to choose the GC I want without needing the

 compiler vendor to supply it.  Otherwise, the compiler vendor either
 needs to know how to write a GC (unlikely) or they need to bundle a
 third-party GC.  Also, different applications have different memory
 requirements.  Tango allows the GC to be chosen at link-time, which
 allows for a great deal of flexibility. 


 If we compare to Java than Sun provides more than one GC with its
 runtime and you can get even more specialized version GC if you really
 need it (real-time for example). I guess there's nothing wrong in
 getting a third party GC either.
 The point is that in Java those GCs are chosen by the runtime (you can
 specify if you run your app as a server or a client app and based on
 that the GC is chosen) or you can specify explicitly your GC too, I
 guess. Non of that should affect your code (unless you choose to use
 specific extensions to the GC API provided but a specialized GC).
 So, the choice of a GC doesn't affect your code.


 The benefit is that the vendors will compete for runtime performance
 which is good for the end user. I can choose vendor A's GC since it is
 more efficient with regards to memory (if I care for that) or vendor 
 B's
 GC if it's faster, etc..


 Better to choose the GC separately from the compiler, then, so you can
 use the best of breed of each.


 All I care is that everything that is visible to the end user is
 standardized - i.e. I can do GC.collect() in my code since it's in the
 APIs and don't care if I use llvmdc, dil, dmd, gdc, etc.. ( I'll care
 for performance reasons and such of course and for that I can just
 switch to a different vendor without any code changes)


 This is a standard library issue not a compiler runtime or GC issue.


 it is an issue with the compiler runtime/GC if there isn't a standard
 API and when I change my GC/runtime I need to edit the source.


 
 What I would like to know now:  is there any progress between this Tango 
 vs Phobos discussion...
 I still don't know if I can rely on Tango for my dev or on phobos and I 
 think I am not the only one.


Yes.


Sean
Aug 25 2008
prev sibling parent reply Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
Yigal Chripun wrote:

 Sean Kelly wrote:
  > I'd prefer being able to choose the GC I want without needing the

 compiler vendor to supply it.  Otherwise, the compiler vendor either
 needs to know how to write a GC (unlikely) or they need to bundle a
 third-party GC.  Also, different applications have different memory
 requirements.  Tango allows the GC to be chosen at link-time, which
 allows for a great deal of flexibility. 


 
 If we compare to Java than Sun provides more than one GC with its
 runtime and you can get even more specialized version GC if you really
 need it (real-time for example). I guess there's nothing wrong in
 getting a third party GC either.
 The point is that in Java those GCs are chosen by the runtime (you can
 specify if you run your app as a server or a client app and based on
 that the GC is chosen) or you can specify explicitly your GC too, I
 guess. Non of that should affect your code (unless you choose to use
 specific extensions to the GC API provided but a specialized GC).
 So, the choice of a GC doesn't affect your code.


It shouldn't, or there would be little point in supporting swappable GCs.


 The benefit is that the vendors will compete for runtime performance
 which is good for the end user. I can choose vendor A's GC since it is
 more efficient with regards to memory (if I care for that) or vendor B's
 GC if it's faster, etc..


 Better to choose the GC separately from the compiler, then, so you can
 use the best of breed of each.


 All I care is that everything that is visible to the end user is
 standardized - i.e. I can do GC.collect() in my code since it's in the
 APIs and don't care if I use llvmdc, dil, dmd, gdc, etc.. ( I'll care
 for performance reasons and such of course and for that I can just
 switch to a different vendor without any code changes)


 This is a standard library issue not a compiler runtime or GC issue.


 
 it is an issue with the compiler runtime/GC if there isn't a standard
 API and when I change my GC/runtime I need to edit the source.


Fortunately, Tango provides such a "standard API" so no source changes 
are needed unless you do something like drop in a "GC" that simply calls 
malloc and free, in which case your app will leak if it isn't written 
with this in mind.


Sean
Aug 25 2008
parent Josh Szepietowski <Goosey gmail.com> writes:
Sean Kelly Wrote:


 Yigal Chripun wrote:

 Sean Kelly wrote:
  > I'd prefer being able to choose the GC I want without needing the

 compiler vendor to supply it.  Otherwise, the compiler vendor either
 needs to know how to write a GC (unlikely) or they need to bundle a
 third-party GC.  Also, different applications have different memory
 requirements.  Tango allows the GC to be chosen at link-time, which
 allows for a great deal of flexibility. 


 
 If we compare to Java than Sun provides more than one GC with its
 runtime and you can get even more specialized version GC if you really
 need it (real-time for example). I guess there's nothing wrong in
 getting a third party GC either.
 The point is that in Java those GCs are chosen by the runtime (you can
 specify if you run your app as a server or a client app and based on
 that the GC is chosen) or you can specify explicitly your GC too, I
 guess. Non of that should affect your code (unless you choose to use
 specific extensions to the GC API provided but a specialized GC).
 So, the choice of a GC doesn't affect your code.


 
 It shouldn't, or there would be little point in supporting swappable GCs.
 

 The benefit is that the vendors will compete for runtime performance
 which is good for the end user. I can choose vendor A's GC since it is
 more efficient with regards to memory (if I care for that) or vendor B's
 GC if it's faster, etc..


 Better to choose the GC separately from the compiler, then, so you can
 use the best of breed of each.


 All I care is that everything that is visible to the end user is
 standardized - i.e. I can do GC.collect() in my code since it's in the
 APIs and don't care if I use llvmdc, dil, dmd, gdc, etc.. ( I'll care
 for performance reasons and such of course and for that I can just
 switch to a different vendor without any code changes)


 This is a standard library issue not a compiler runtime or GC issue.


 
 it is an issue with the compiler runtime/GC if there isn't a standard
 API and when I change my GC/runtime I need to edit the source.


 
 Fortunately, Tango provides such a "standard API" so no source changes 
 are needed unless you do something like drop in a "GC" that simply calls 
 malloc and free, in which case your app will leak if it isn't written 
 with this in mind.
 
 
 Sean


Just wanted to voice that being able to overload the GC functions as in the D
Conference 2007 talk is kind of a killer feature for me. Whatever shakedown
happens from the phobos/tango runtime unificiation (which IMHO should be the
first priority for the D 'standard library community') I really hope the
swappable GC functions stay.
Aug 25 2008
prev sibling parent Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
Yigal Chripun wrote:

 Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:

 Lutger wrote:


 Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:


 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
  

 This is my view (might not work, but I think it could).  For purposes of
 simplicity, I'll assume Walter currently develops the Phobos runtime
 (not that he doesn't, but I'm really not sure :).

 Maintenance of the merged runtime would become Walter's responsibility,
 with your help if necessary (ideas and help understanding, and
 enhancements if
 you wish).  Any changes desired for the runtime would go through Phobos
 (and
 Walter).  The Tango lib would use the now tango-fied Phobos runtime,
 with alias imports for existing code (e.g. tango.core.Thread would
 either publicly import std.thread or would privately import it, and
 alias the Thread class).


 Based on historical evidence, this doesn't sound like a particularly good
 idea. The current situation ensued for a reason.

 Also, I find that this discussion quite completely ignores the fact that
 DMD is not the only D compiler anymore, and Walter is not the only one
 with a vested interest in the functionality. In fact it looks like quite
 many of the Tango conference attendants wants to discuss the runtime.


 How does it ignore it? It sounds rather like the opposite to me: the very
 existence of multiple runtimes and the vested interest in those runtimes
 (Tango's primarily) are the key reason for unification.


 Unification, yes. You misunderstood my point, which is that the runtime
 implementation (not the compiler specific portion and direct language
 support) should, IMO, be independent. As long as Walter/DigitalMars is the
 developer of the language itself, it will be natural that eventual new
 features that the language requires from the runtime, will be bootstrapped
 by code from Walter, but I think Sean's work on the runtime in Tango shows
 that such initial implementation can have large potential for improvements.


  

 If there should be a common-common (not only "just" compatible) runtime,
 it shouldn't be controlled by one compiler vendor. Note that the Tango
 runtime consists of 3 parts, where only one is compiler specific. That
 particular part should probably be controlled/reviewed by the compiler
 vendor, the rest (GC, threading, other things) should be independent.


 I'll admit my understanding is limited, but I'd guess that will lead to
 even further fragmentation and non-portability. 


 The compiler part would have to conform to the necessary interfaces, of
 course, but at some level the implementation details needs to be, and not
 all can be kept in the compiler itself, thus it must be somewhere in the
 runtime. I don't see this as a problem, just a necessary evil.


 
 I don't understand your point. are you suggesting that things like the
 GC will be independent from the compiler?
 It seems to me that the model suggested by Sean is the way to go:
 ie:
 
 my code
 ----------
 standard library user code and standardized APIs to the runtime
 (threading, etc
 ---------------------------------
 compiler + runtime A  | compiler + runtime B | .....
 
 
 if a user isn't satisfied by runtime/compiler A he should just switch
 vendors.
 All the user facing APIs are standardized in the stdlib so all is needed
 is to recompile..


I think it's worth distinguishing a bit more detail:


                       my code
--------------------------
       standard library   |
-------------------------------------------------------
compiler runtime | garbage collector | std. lib runtime


With the above model, the runtime is actually made up of three distinct 
components: the compiler support code, the GC, and some user-visible 
runtime code which I've termed the "standard library runtime."  This 
model provides a clear division of labor: the compiler writer worries 
only about the compiler support code, OS geeks can create the GC, and 
library programmers can work on the library bit.


Sean
Aug 18 2008
prev sibling parent reply Lutger <lutger.blijdestijn gmail.com> writes:
Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:


 Lutger wrote:


...

 How does it ignore it? It sounds rather like the opposite to me: the very
 existence of multiple runtimes and the vested interest in those runtimes
 (Tango's primarily) are the key reason for unification.


 
 Unification, yes. You misunderstood my point, which is that the runtime
 implementation (not the compiler specific portion and direct language
 support) should, IMO, be independent. As long as Walter/DigitalMars is the
 developer of the language itself, it will be natural that eventual new
 features that the language requires from the runtime, will be bootstrapped
 by code from Walter, but I think Sean's work on the runtime in Tango shows
 that such initial implementation can have large potential for
 improvements.


Ok I think I understand and agree that some room for this potential would be
good, of course. What I'm worried about is that D libraries will depend on
specific api (not only implementation) of the runtime, which could lead to
a mess when we'll have more and more of such implementations.

Simply put, I'm afraid that in the future to make a cross-platform code
we'll have to do something equivalent to a C++ header file consisting of
dozens of bizarre #ifdef ... #elif etc. logic. Or worse, need a massive
porting effort or wrapping libraries a la tangobos if you need a D library
developed for a different compiler.

Perhaps more interfaces could be standardized? I don't know. I'd hate to see
a thread in some years called 'phobos vs tango vs dil vs dang vs llvmdc vs
etc.' ;) </hyperbole>
Aug 16 2008
next sibling parent Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:
Lutger wrote:


 Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
 

 Lutger wrote:


 ...

 How does it ignore it? It sounds rather like the opposite to me: the
 very existence of multiple runtimes and the vested interest in those
 runtimes (Tango's primarily) are the key reason for unification.


 
 Unification, yes. You misunderstood my point, which is that the runtime
 implementation (not the compiler specific portion and direct language
 support) should, IMO, be independent. As long as Walter/DigitalMars is
 the developer of the language itself, it will be natural that eventual
 new features that the language requires from the runtime, will be
 bootstrapped by code from Walter, but I think Sean's work on the runtime
 in Tango shows that such initial implementation can have large potential
 for improvements.


 
 Ok I think I understand and agree that some room for this potential would
 be good, of course. What I'm worried about is that D libraries will depend
 on specific api (not only implementation) of the runtime, which could lead
 to a mess when we'll have more and more of such implementations.
 
 Simply put, I'm afraid that in the future to make a cross-platform code
 we'll have to do something equivalent to a C++ header file consisting of
 dozens of bizarre #ifdef ... #elif etc. logic. Or worse, need a massive
 porting effort or wrapping libraries a la tangobos if you need a D library
 developed for a different compiler.


A way to ensure that there are common, good and well defined interfaces is
what I try to hint at. I don't think all of those can be properly achieved
by letting one vendor decide. I also think that having a common place to
have the compiler independent implementation would help this goal, ie that
compiler vendors don't need to write this themselves.

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango
Aug 16 2008
prev sibling parent Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
Lutger wrote:

 Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
 

 Lutger wrote:


 ...

 How does it ignore it? It sounds rather like the opposite to me: the very
 existence of multiple runtimes and the vested interest in those runtimes
 (Tango's primarily) are the key reason for unification.


 Unification, yes. You misunderstood my point, which is that the runtime
 implementation (not the compiler specific portion and direct language
 support) should, IMO, be independent. As long as Walter/DigitalMars is the
 developer of the language itself, it will be natural that eventual new
 features that the language requires from the runtime, will be bootstrapped
 by code from Walter, but I think Sean's work on the runtime in Tango shows
 that such initial implementation can have large potential for
 improvements.


 
 Ok I think I understand and agree that some room for this potential would be
 good, of course. What I'm worried about is that D libraries will depend on
 specific api (not only implementation) of the runtime, which could lead to
 a mess when we'll have more and more of such implementations.


This is why the Tango runtime is designed the way it is -- it eliminates 
all dependency on standard library implementation.  The API exposed is 
very simply and completely portable.


 Simply put, I'm afraid that in the future to make a cross-platform code
 we'll have to do something equivalent to a C++ header file consisting of
 dozens of bizarre #ifdef ... #elif etc. logic. Or worse, need a massive
 porting effort or wrapping libraries a la tangobos if you need a D library
 developed for a different compiler.


And this is the reason for making the runtime separately available from 
/any/ standard library :-)


Sean
Aug 18 2008
prev sibling parent sambeau <sambeau-nospam gmail.com> writes:
Lars Ivar Igesund Wrote:


 Based on historical evidence, this doesn't sound like a particularly good
 idea. The current situation ensued for a reason.


* sigh *
Aug 15 2008
prev sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 As far as threads, I agree.  One must be chosen.


The threading issue is more problematic. D 2.0 is doing a ground up 
rethink on how to approach threading, and it's hard to imagine that not 
impacting the threading part of the library.

A common exception base is much more straightforward.
Aug 15 2008
parent reply Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 As far as threads, I agree.  One must be chosen.


 
 The threading issue is more problematic. D 2.0 is doing a ground up 
 rethink on how to approach threading, and it's hard to imagine that not 
 impacting the threading part of the library.


So is classic threading going to be thrown out entirely?  If so then I 
guess it eliminates the problem of exposing a Thread class.


 A common exception base is much more straightforward.


Agreed.


Sean
Aug 15 2008
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Sean Kelly wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:

 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 As far as threads, I agree.  One must be chosen.


 The threading issue is more problematic. D 2.0 is doing a ground up 
 rethink on how to approach threading, and it's hard to imagine that 
 not impacting the threading part of the library.


 
 So is classic threading going to be thrown out entirely?  If so then I 
 guess it eliminates the problem of exposing a Thread class.


I don't know. Bartosz is working on it. He understands the issues far 
better than I do. What I do believe is that handling concurrency well 
will be a breakthrough feature for D.
Aug 15 2008
parent Moritz Warning <moritzwarning web.de> writes:
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 14:41:20 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:


 Sean Kelly wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:

 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 As far as threads, I agree.  One must be chosen.


 The threading issue is more problematic. D 2.0 is doing a ground up
 rethink on how to approach threading, and it's hard to imagine that
 not impacting the threading part of the library.


 
 So is classic threading going to be thrown out entirely?  If so then I
 guess it eliminates the problem of exposing a Thread class.


 
 I don't know. Bartosz is working on it. He understands the issues far
 better than I do. What I do believe is that handling concurrency well
 will be a breakthrough feature for D.


Sounds like a nifty feature, but please keep in mind that users like
to have control about everything if they want to.
Otherwise D is becoming quite restricted.

Like the garbage collector (GC) can be turned off and manual memory 
management can be used, automatic threading in D should give similar 
control.


But the current gc handling is a bit inflexible. Turning off the gc still 
leaves the gc code in the binary without additional work. But that's 
another story. :)
Aug 15 2008
prev sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Yigal Chripun wrote:

 In this Specific case:
 Walter needs his name on all the Phobos code and he stated his valid
 reasons for it. Tango developers want their names on the Tango code and
 rightly so, since they wrote it. in case of a merger of those two code
 bases you get one joint code base but *two* teams that want their name
 on the code. someone has to be first.


No, I do not "need my name" on the Phobos code. I have no interest in 
taking credit for others' work. As I have stated previously, the idea 
here is to:

1. To ensure Phobos is free of any legal taint and any accusations of 
stealing code.

2. To avoid the untenable issue of a single module in Phobos having 
different license for different lines of code.

It is not an issue of credit, I have no problem with (and strongly 
encourage) the people who wrote the code having their name in it and 
taking credit.

At one point, Brad was trying to do some merging and was accused of 
"stealing" from Tango. I was told later that this was in jest, but this 
kind of thing cannot be taken lightly. Phobos needs to be squeaky clean 
in the legal department.

I have done my part and have provided an explicit, clear, and 
unambiguous license for Tango to use whatever parts of Phobos they need 
and to put it under the Tango license (for all the parts for which I 
have a right to do so). All I ask is for a reciprocal agreement.
Aug 14 2008
parent reply Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 Yigal Chripun wrote:

 In this Specific case:
 Walter needs his name on all the Phobos code and he stated his valid
 reasons for it. Tango developers want their names on the Tango code and
 rightly so, since they wrote it. in case of a merger of those two code
 bases you get one joint code base but *two* teams that want their name
 on the code. someone has to be first.


 
 No, I do not "need my name" on the Phobos code. I have no interest in
 taking credit for others' work. As I have stated previously, the idea
 here is to:
 
 1. To ensure Phobos is free of any legal taint and any accusations of
 stealing code.
 
 2. To avoid the untenable issue of a single module in Phobos having
 different license for different lines of code.
 
 It is not an issue of credit, I have no problem with (and strongly
 encourage) the people who wrote the code having their name in it and
 taking credit.
 
 At one point, Brad was trying to do some merging and was accused of
 "stealing" from Tango. I was told later that this was in jest, but this
 kind of thing cannot be taken lightly. Phobos needs to be squeaky clean
 in the legal department.
 
 I have done my part and have provided an explicit, clear, and
 unambiguous license for Tango to use whatever parts of Phobos they need
 and to put it under the Tango license (for all the parts for which I
 have a right to do so). All I ask is for a reciprocal agreement.


Walter,
from my POV which is that of a user, all I see is a huge storm in a cup
of water from a year ago.
I do not take a side in this nor do I care for the issues both sides
raise. as I've said in my previous post which is quoted in this post
already and I'll quote here again "[Walter] stated his valid reasons".
So you see, I do not question your reasons. All I see as a user is that
Steven compared the licenses and they're almost Identical, Sean Kelly
has given you permission to all his code and I see his posts and see no
reason this hasn't been solved a year ago.

I'm a user. I should not care if contributer A insulted/jested with
Developer B.

Since you do not have any issues with giving credit (where it is due)
and Sean gave you a free hand with all his code, All of your points
above are achieved in regard to the runtime.
You want more prove to see the authors of the runtime? Check the version
control logs.
But really, unless this issue is solved and solved *soon*, both versions
of D are a dead end. This is far more important to resolve than any new
feature in D2.

again, as an average user that just want to use D, I can happily live
without array ops, native thread local memory and other features for a
few months, But I really must insist that D needs a standardized runtime
library, now. otherwise I have no use for D at all no matter what fancy
tricks it has under its sleeves.

The only thing left to say is that this should be handled in the same
way a pope is selected:
all cardinals gather in his room and they are not allowed to leave this
room until a new pope is selected which is signaled by white smoke.
(I've been to Italy and the guide showed us where it supposed to come from).
this is what currently needed to solve this. put everything else aside
(both you and the Tango devs) and give us white smoke. until I see that
white smoke coming from this NG, I (and I'm sure many others) will see
no future in D.
Aug 14 2008
parent Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Yigal Chripun wrote:

 Since you do not have any issues with giving credit (where it is due)
 and Sean gave you a free hand with all his code, All of your points
 above are achieved in regard to the runtime.


Sean has sent me a zip of the runtime code that he owns. I think that 
will be adequate to resolve the problem.
Aug 14 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Christopher Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:

 I have explained this to the main Tango developers on multiple
 occasions. It is their right and privilege to license Tango as they see
 fit, and I respect that and so have not spoken out on it before. But in
 this thread I am being cast as a roadblock, which I feel is a little
 unfair, so I will loosen my tongue and speak up a bit :-)


 And we have on equally many occasions told you that the code you need is
 available. :)


 
 I respectfully disagree. The Tango team has stopped short of providing a 
 license to use the Tango code in Phobos with a reciprocal agreement that 
 allows it to be distributed under the Phobos license. I also cannot 
 accept something vague, it has to be explicit.
 
 I've dealt with lawyers many times, and spelling it out directly and 
 explicitly avoids a lot of future potential problems. Furthermore, if 
 Phobos has a wishy-washy legal pedigree, corporate lawyers will not buy 
 off on allowing D to be used in their companies.
 
 This issue must be settled in advance of looking at Tango, not after the 
 fact.


 From phobos/phoboslicense.txt:

  *  Copyright (C) 2004-2005 by Digital Mars, www.digitalmars.com
  *  Written by Walter Bright
(followed by BSD license)

Those lines are an issue. Are you asking for copyright assignment? 
That's a bit much to ask.

An alternative problem is this:
  *  Placed in the Public Domain

A number of modules in phobos/internal are marked public domain. Are you 
asking for Tango's internals to be placed in the public domain? That 
also is a bit much to ask.

The BSD license is simply public domain with attribution. So what is the 
issue with using it? Phobos already uses it. Just with your name as the 
copyright holder.

Or do you want an agreement to allow relicensing of Phobos and Tango, 
let's say to incompatible licenses, and still allow Phobos and Tango to 
share code afterward?

It's unclear what you want or need that you don't already have.
Aug 14 2008
next sibling parent reply Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
Christopher Wright wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:

 Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:

 I have explained this to the main Tango developers on multiple
 occasions. It is their right and privilege to license Tango as they see
 fit, and I respect that and so have not spoken out on it before. But in
 this thread I am being cast as a roadblock, which I feel is a little
 unfair, so I will loosen my tongue and speak up a bit :-)


 And we have on equally many occasions told you that the code you need is
 available. :)


 I respectfully disagree. The Tango team has stopped short of providing 
 a license to use the Tango code in Phobos with a reciprocal agreement 
 that allows it to be distributed under the Phobos license. I also 
 cannot accept something vague, it has to be explicit.

 I've dealt with lawyers many times, and spelling it out directly and 
 explicitly avoids a lot of future potential problems. Furthermore, if 
 Phobos has a wishy-washy legal pedigree, corporate lawyers will not 
 buy off on allowing D to be used in their companies.

 This issue must be settled in advance of looking at Tango, not after 
 the fact.


 
  From phobos/phoboslicense.txt:
 
  *  Copyright (C) 2004-2005 by Digital Mars, www.digitalmars.com
  *  Written by Walter Bright
 (followed by BSD license)
 
 Those lines are an issue. Are you asking for copyright assignment? 
 That's a bit much to ask.
 
 An alternative problem is this:
  *  Placed in the Public Domain
 
 A number of modules in phobos/internal are marked public domain. Are you 
 asking for Tango's internals to be placed in the public domain? That 
 also is a bit much to ask.


Walter is asking for us to give him the right to distribute any and all 
of Tango within Phobos under the Public Domain license.  What I've never 
understood is why it's enough for myself, Kris, and Lars to provide this 
permission when Tango has had a ton of individual contributors.  But 
then I am not a lawyer.


Sean
Aug 14 2008
parent Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Sean Kelly wrote:

 Walter is asking for us to give him the right to distribute any and all 
 of Tango within Phobos under the Public Domain license.  What I've never 
 understood is why it's enough for myself, Kris, and Lars to provide this 
 permission when Tango has had a ton of individual contributors.  But 
 then I am not a lawyer.


Because you guys are the leaders and spokesmen for Tango. But that's 
moot at the moment anyway, because it seems what you have provided is 
sufficient, and I thank you for that.
Aug 14 2008
prev sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Christopher Wright wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:

 Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:

 I have explained this to the main Tango developers on multiple
 occasions. It is their right and privilege to license Tango as they see
 fit, and I respect that and so have not spoken out on it before. But in
 this thread I am being cast as a roadblock, which I feel is a little
 unfair, so I will loosen my tongue and speak up a bit :-)


 And we have on equally many occasions told you that the code you need is
 available. :)


 I respectfully disagree. The Tango team has stopped short of providing 
 a license to use the Tango code in Phobos with a reciprocal agreement 
 that allows it to be distributed under the Phobos license. I also 
 cannot accept something vague, it has to be explicit.

 I've dealt with lawyers many times, and spelling it out directly and 
 explicitly avoids a lot of future potential problems. Furthermore, if 
 Phobos has a wishy-washy legal pedigree, corporate lawyers will not 
 buy off on allowing D to be used in their companies.

 This issue must be settled in advance of looking at Tango, not after 
 the fact.


 
  From phobos/phoboslicense.txt:
 
  *  Copyright (C) 2004-2005 by Digital Mars, www.digitalmars.com
  *  Written by Walter Bright
 (followed by BSD license)
 
 Those lines are an issue. Are you asking for copyright assignment? 
 That's a bit much to ask.


I've provided the same to Tango.



 An alternative problem is this:
  *  Placed in the Public Domain
 
 A number of modules in phobos/internal are marked public domain. Are you 
 asking for Tango's internals to be placed in the public domain? That 
 also is a bit much to ask.


Why is it a bit much to ask?



 The BSD license is simply public domain with attribution.


No, it is not. Public Domain code is not copyrighted and does not 
require a license.


 So what is the 
 issue with using it? Phobos already uses it. Just with your name as the 
 copyright holder.
 
 Or do you want an agreement to allow relicensing of Phobos and Tango, 
 let's say to incompatible licenses, and still allow Phobos and Tango to 
 share code afterward?
 
 It's unclear what you want or need that you don't already have.


The problems are two:

1. Phobos has already been accused of stealing code from Tango. 
Therefore, I would like explicit permission from the Tango team. I am 
not going to take code from Tango and put it in Phobos without explicit 
permission from the Tango team. Any hint of Phobos not having a clean 
legal pedigree will impair its adoption.

2. Having multiple licenses for one source module is an untenable situation.
Aug 14 2008
next sibling parent Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight gmail.com> writes:
Walter Bright Wrote:

 The problems are two:
 
 1. Phobos has already been accused of stealing code from Tango. 
 Therefore, I would like explicit permission from the Tango team. I am 
 not going to take code from Tango and put it in Phobos without explicit 
 permission from the Tango team. Any hint of Phobos not having a clean 
 legal pedigree will impair its adoption.
 
 2. Having multiple licenses for one source module is an untenable situation.


From reading this thread, it seems Sean gave permission for the Tango
runtime to be re-licensed under the Phobos one. Given this, is the
roadblock that you also need permission for the user code or that Sean's
permission given for the runtime was not explicit enough?
Aug 14 2008
prev sibling parent reply Christopher Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 Christopher Wright wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:

 Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:

 I have explained this to the main Tango developers on multiple
 occasions. It is their right and privilege to license Tango as they 
 see
 fit, and I respect that and so have not spoken out on it before. 
 But in
 this thread I am being cast as a roadblock, which I feel is a little
 unfair, so I will loosen my tongue and speak up a bit :-)


 And we have on equally many occasions told you that the code you 
 need is
 available. :)


 I respectfully disagree. The Tango team has stopped short of 
 providing a license to use the Tango code in Phobos with a reciprocal 
 agreement that allows it to be distributed under the Phobos license. 
 I also cannot accept something vague, it has to be explicit.

 I've dealt with lawyers many times, and spelling it out directly and 
 explicitly avoids a lot of future potential problems. Furthermore, if 
 Phobos has a wishy-washy legal pedigree, corporate lawyers will not 
 buy off on allowing D to be used in their companies.

 This issue must be settled in advance of looking at Tango, not after 
 the fact.


  From phobos/phoboslicense.txt:

  *  Copyright (C) 2004-2005 by Digital Mars, www.digitalmars.com
  *  Written by Walter Bright
 (followed by BSD license)

 Those lines are an issue. Are you asking for copyright assignment? 
 That's a bit much to ask.


 
 I've provided the same to Tango.


If you had assigned your copyright to the Tango developers, then the 
files would read:
  *  Copyright (C) 2004-2005 by Sean Kelly, Lars Ivar Igesund, Don 
Clugson....


 An alternative problem is this:
  *  Placed in the Public Domain

 A number of modules in phobos/internal are marked public domain. Are 
 you asking for Tango's internals to be placed in the public domain? 
 That also is a bit much to ask.


 
 Why is it a bit much to ask?


The BSD license allows anyone to do anything with the work as long as 
the authors get proper recognition. The one incentive to distribute the 
work is this recognition (besides encouraging others to help with the 
project).

If you're not going to take any Tango code and claim that it is yours, 
then the BSD license shouldn't cause any problems for you. If you 
require public domain, that implies that the BSD license causes problems 
for you. That implies that you're going to steal code.

I don't believe that you would do so. But by requiring Tango to be 
placed in the public domain, you're allowing everyone else to do so.


 The BSD license is simply public domain with attribution.


 
 No, it is not. Public Domain code is not copyrighted and does not 
 require a license.


 So what is the issue with using it? Phobos already uses it. Just with 
 your name as the copyright holder.

 Or do you want an agreement to allow relicensing of Phobos and Tango, 
 let's say to incompatible licenses, and still allow Phobos and Tango 
 to share code afterward?

 It's unclear what you want or need that you don't already have.


 
 The problems are two:
 
 1. Phobos has already been accused of stealing code from Tango. 
 Therefore, I would like explicit permission from the Tango team. I am 
 not going to take code from Tango and put it in Phobos without explicit 
 permission from the Tango team. Any hint of Phobos not having a clean 
 legal pedigree will impair its adoption.


The BSD license is explicit permission. Or do you intend to redistribute 
Tango code without proper attribution?


 2. Having multiple licenses for one source module is an untenable 
 situation.


You can license any merged modules under the BSD license, unless they 
are under some other license currently. Public domain isn't a license, 
and it's compatible with every license.
Aug 14 2008
parent reply superdan <super dan.org> writes:
Christopher Wright Wrote:


 Walter Bright wrote:

 Christopher Wright wrote:

 A number of modules in phobos/internal are marked public domain. Are 
 you asking for Tango's internals to be placed in the public domain? 
 That also is a bit much to ask.


 
 Why is it a bit much to ask?


 
 The BSD license allows anyone to do anything with the work as long as 
 the authors get proper recognition. The one incentive to distribute the 
 work is this recognition (besides encouraging others to help with the 
 project).
 
 If you're not going to take any Tango code and claim that it is yours, 
 then the BSD license shouldn't cause any problems for you. If you 
 require public domain, that implies that the BSD license causes problems 
 for you. That implies that you're going to steal code.


you're not following what walt says eh. his problem is not he wanna steal and
get away with it. problem is that he doesn't wanna be accused of stealing. poop
man. he got accused before even lookin' at the gorram thing. also his problem
is not he doesn't wanna acknowledge whodunit. i grepped around phobos and
there's many names in there. there's even a guy whos name is in there tho all
his stuff has been rewritten since.

what walt wanna is look at tango without fear that some dood will cry he stole
his code. after all there's only this many ways you can do trivial sh... stuff
like async i/o and logging and containers. slander comes easily and goes not so
easily. is he paranoid? sure as hell he is. oh, wait. some dood _did_ cry walt
stole (thru brad) his precious soon as they was within a hundred miles. all
this while walt is known to give credit down to the dog pooping in the driveway
walt was looking at when he came with an idea. give me an intercoursing break.


 I don't believe that you would do so. But by requiring Tango to be 
 placed in the public domain, you're allowing everyone else to do so.


he didn't require tango to be placed in the public domain. he asked for the
same deal he gave to tango. actually he didn't even ask. he just mentioned what
it takes for him to look at the code.


 The BSD license is simply public domain with attribution.


 
 No, it is not. Public Domain code is not copyrighted and does not 
 require a license.


  >

 So what is the issue with using it? Phobos already uses it. Just with 
 your name as the copyright holder.

 Or do you want an agreement to allow relicensing of Phobos and Tango, 
 let's say to incompatible licenses, and still allow Phobos and Tango 
 to share code afterward?

 It's unclear what you want or need that you don't already have.


 
 The problems are two:
 
 1. Phobos has already been accused of stealing code from Tango. 
 Therefore, I would like explicit permission from the Tango team. I am 
 not going to take code from Tango and put it in Phobos without explicit 
 permission from the Tango team. Any hint of Phobos not having a clean 
 legal pedigree will impair its adoption.


 
 The BSD license is explicit permission. Or do you intend to redistribute 
 Tango code without proper attribution?


no. he just wants to escape the tyranny of slander. he's just worried that a
tyrangot will _claim_ walt redistributed tango code without proper attribution.
Aug 14 2008
next sibling parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
"superdan" wrote

 Christopher Wright Wrote:


 Walter Bright wrote:

 Christopher Wright wrote:

 A number of modules in phobos/internal are marked public domain. Are
 you asking for Tango's internals to be placed in the public domain?
 That also is a bit much to ask.


 Why is it a bit much to ask?


 The BSD license allows anyone to do anything with the work as long as
 the authors get proper recognition. The one incentive to distribute the
 work is this recognition (besides encouraging others to help with the
 project).

 If you're not going to take any Tango code and claim that it is yours,
 then the BSD license shouldn't cause any problems for you. If you
 require public domain, that implies that the BSD license causes problems
 for you. That implies that you're going to steal code.


 you're not following what walt says eh. his problem is not he wanna steal 
 and get away with it. problem is that he doesn't wanna be accused of 
 stealing. poop man. he got accused before even lookin' at the gorram 
 thing. also his problem is not he doesn't wanna acknowledge whodunit. i 
 grepped around phobos and there's many names in there. there's even a guy 
 whos name is in there tho all his stuff has been rewritten since.

 what walt wanna is look at tango without fear that some dood will cry he 
 stole his code. after all there's only this many ways you can do trivial 
 sh... stuff like async i/o and logging and containers. slander comes 
 easily and goes not so easily. is he paranoid? sure as hell he is. oh, 
 wait. some dood _did_ cry walt stole (thru brad) his precious soon as they 
 was within a hundred miles. all this while walt is known to give credit 
 down to the dog pooping in the driveway walt was looking at when he came 
 with an idea. give me an intercoursing break.


The problem is, there is never a guarantee of that.  Joe Shmoe can come 
along and claim that he works with Sean and Sean stole all his D Thread code 
and gave it to tango.  Now, even though the entire Tango team has given 
permission to Walter, he is still in trouble.

The answer is, either Walter accepts that Sean (and others who gave 
permission) are the rightful owners of the Tango runtime, and he has 
permission to use it, or Walter is so paranoid that he trusts nobody who 
says they own code, and he doesn't use it.  He needs to have some faith that 
the person who says they own the code actually does.


 I don't believe that you would do so. But by requiring Tango to be
 placed in the public domain, you're allowing everyone else to do so.


 he didn't require tango to be placed in the public domain. he asked for 
 the same deal he gave to tango. actually he didn't even ask. he just 
 mentioned what it takes for him to look at the code.


I agree with you on this, but the fact still remains that Walter is not safe 
as soon as he looks at any code, no matter who says they wrote it, unless he 
himself wrote it.  I think this is taking it a little too extreme.


 The BSD license is simply public domain with attribution.


 No, it is not. Public Domain code is not copyrighted and does not
 require a license.


  >

 So what is the issue with using it? Phobos already uses it. Just with
 your name as the copyright holder.

 Or do you want an agreement to allow relicensing of Phobos and Tango,
 let's say to incompatible licenses, and still allow Phobos and Tango
 to share code afterward?

 It's unclear what you want or need that you don't already have.


 The problems are two:

 1. Phobos has already been accused of stealing code from Tango.
 Therefore, I would like explicit permission from the Tango team. I am
 not going to take code from Tango and put it in Phobos without explicit
 permission from the Tango team. Any hint of Phobos not having a clean
 legal pedigree will impair its adoption.


 The BSD license is explicit permission. Or do you intend to redistribute
 Tango code without proper attribution?


 no. he just wants to escape the tyranny of slander. he's just worried that 
 a tyrangot will _claim_ walt redistributed tango code without proper 
 attribution.


The owners have given him permission, and promised not to slander.  Anyone 
who cries foul after the rightful owners have given permission is full of 
crap, and I will be the first to say so.  So long as Walter and co. just 
look at the proper files (the ones with the permission).  Hell, I don't care 
if he looks at all of tango, as long as he either doesn't copy the code, or 
if he does, obeys the license requirements.

I don't think any Tango devs are waiting to jump on Walter at the first 
chance Phobos is compatible with Tango.  I think everyone in Tango is 
interested in having Phobos and Tango compatible.

-Steve
Aug 14 2008
parent reply superdan <super dan.org> writes:
Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:


 "superdan" wrote

 Christopher Wright Wrote:


 Walter Bright wrote:

 Christopher Wright wrote:

 A number of modules in phobos/internal are marked public domain. Are
 you asking for Tango's internals to be placed in the public domain?
 That also is a bit much to ask.


 Why is it a bit much to ask?


 The BSD license allows anyone to do anything with the work as long as
 the authors get proper recognition. The one incentive to distribute the
 work is this recognition (besides encouraging others to help with the
 project).

 If you're not going to take any Tango code and claim that it is yours,
 then the BSD license shouldn't cause any problems for you. If you
 require public domain, that implies that the BSD license causes problems
 for you. That implies that you're going to steal code.


 you're not following what walt says eh. his problem is not he wanna steal 
 and get away with it. problem is that he doesn't wanna be accused of 
 stealing. poop man. he got accused before even lookin' at the gorram 
 thing. also his problem is not he doesn't wanna acknowledge whodunit. i 
 grepped around phobos and there's many names in there. there's even a guy 
 whos name is in there tho all his stuff has been rewritten since.

 what walt wanna is look at tango without fear that some dood will cry he 
 stole his code. after all there's only this many ways you can do trivial 
 sh... stuff like async i/o and logging and containers. slander comes 
 easily and goes not so easily. is he paranoid? sure as hell he is. oh, 
 wait. some dood _did_ cry walt stole (thru brad) his precious soon as they 
 was within a hundred miles. all this while walt is known to give credit 
 down to the dog pooping in the driveway walt was looking at when he came 
 with an idea. give me an intercoursing break.


 
 The problem is, there is never a guarantee of that.  Joe Shmoe can come 
 along and claim that he works with Sean and Sean stole all his D Thread code 
 and gave it to tango.  Now, even though the entire Tango team has given 
 permission to Walter, he is still in trouble.


do you want us to participate in a dialog. or revel in improbable
possibilities. this is a red herring.


 The answer is, either Walter accepts that Sean (and others who gave 
 permission) are the rightful owners of the Tango runtime, and he has 
 permission to use it, or Walter is so paranoid that he trusts nobody who 
 says they own code, and he doesn't use it.  He needs to have some faith that 
 the person who says they own the code actually does.


i gather you don't quite read all messages. walt don't want to deliver a
compiler with code he can't control. he must deliver code he can change. if
that code works with tango walt must know what he gotta do. to do so he must
look at tango. sean is cool with that. kris and lars "mi" ivar arent.


 I don't believe that you would do so. But by requiring Tango to be
 placed in the public domain, you're allowing everyone else to do so.


 he didn't require tango to be placed in the public domain. he asked for 
 the same deal he gave to tango. actually he didn't even ask. he just 
 mentioned what it takes for him to look at the code.


 
 I agree with you on this, but the fact still remains that Walter is not safe 
 as soon as he looks at any code, no matter who says they wrote it, unless he 
 himself wrote it.  I think this is taking it a little too extreme.


yeah, ur interpretation. that's extreme.


 The BSD license is simply public domain with attribution.


 No, it is not. Public Domain code is not copyrighted and does not
 require a license.


  >

 So what is the issue with using it? Phobos already uses it. Just with
 your name as the copyright holder.

 Or do you want an agreement to allow relicensing of Phobos and Tango,
 let's say to incompatible licenses, and still allow Phobos and Tango
 to share code afterward?

 It's unclear what you want or need that you don't already have.


 The problems are two:

 1. Phobos has already been accused of stealing code from Tango.
 Therefore, I would like explicit permission from the Tango team. I am
 not going to take code from Tango and put it in Phobos without explicit
 permission from the Tango team. Any hint of Phobos not having a clean
 legal pedigree will impair its adoption.


 The BSD license is explicit permission. Or do you intend to redistribute
 Tango code without proper attribution?


 no. he just wants to escape the tyranny of slander. he's just worried that 
 a tyrangot will _claim_ walt redistributed tango code without proper 
 attribution.


 
 The owners have given him permission, and promised not to slander.


now i am sure u read every other message in this thread. go back and read'em
all.


  Anyone 
 who cries foul after the rightful owners have given permission is full of 
 crap, and I will be the first to say so.


no permission was given. do you like me post drunk sometimes.


  So long as Walter and co. just 
 look at the proper files (the ones with the permission).  Hell, I don't care 
 if he looks at all of tango, as long as he either doesn't copy the code, or 
 if he does, obeys the license requirements.


_you_ don't care. others can't wait. they cried foul as soon as there was
potential code could've been copied. gorramit. at least if there was da momma
of all code. but it's java containers net stack log4j etc. just how many ways
could log4j be in d.


 I don't think any Tango devs are waiting to jump on Walter at the first 
 chance Phobos is compatible with Tango.  I think everyone in Tango is 
 interested in having Phobos and Tango compatible.


would be great but don't quite look like it. why don't u do some homework and
read messages. i took 2 days. then talk.
Aug 14 2008
parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
"superdan" wrote

 Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:


 "superdan" wrote

 Christopher Wright Wrote:


 Walter Bright wrote:

 Christopher Wright wrote:

 A number of modules in phobos/internal are marked public domain. 
 Are
 you asking for Tango's internals to be placed in the public domain?
 That also is a bit much to ask.


 Why is it a bit much to ask?


 The BSD license allows anyone to do anything with the work as long as
 the authors get proper recognition. The one incentive to distribute 
 the
 work is this recognition (besides encouraging others to help with the
 project).

 If you're not going to take any Tango code and claim that it is yours,
 then the BSD license shouldn't cause any problems for you. If you
 require public domain, that implies that the BSD license causes 
 problems
 for you. That implies that you're going to steal code.


 you're not following what walt says eh. his problem is not he wanna 
 steal
 and get away with it. problem is that he doesn't wanna be accused of
 stealing. poop man. he got accused before even lookin' at the gorram
 thing. also his problem is not he doesn't wanna acknowledge whodunit. i
 grepped around phobos and there's many names in there. there's even a 
 guy
 whos name is in there tho all his stuff has been rewritten since.

 what walt wanna is look at tango without fear that some dood will cry 
 he
 stole his code. after all there's only this many ways you can do 
 trivial
 sh... stuff like async i/o and logging and containers. slander comes
 easily and goes not so easily. is he paranoid? sure as hell he is. oh,
 wait. some dood _did_ cry walt stole (thru brad) his precious soon as 
 they
 was within a hundred miles. all this while walt is known to give credit
 down to the dog pooping in the driveway walt was looking at when he 
 came
 with an idea. give me an intercoursing break.


 The problem is, there is never a guarantee of that.  Joe Shmoe can come
 along and claim that he works with Sean and Sean stole all his D Thread 
 code
 and gave it to tango.  Now, even though the entire Tango team has given
 permission to Walter, he is still in trouble.


 do you want us to participate in a dialog. or revel in improbable 
 possibilities. this is a red herring.


I'm glad you see the futility in it :)  I was going off of the messages that 
said that the owners of the runtime gave permission, but for some reason 
Walter still refused to look at the runtime package that Sean sent.  What I 
read in other messages (yes, I've read every one, except for the rant on 
copyrights and pirating) is that he accepts that Sean (and others) gave 
permission, but it's possible that some of the other Tango devs had a hand 
in the runtime (even though they don't claim authorship), and so he wants 
the permission of ALL the Tango devs.  Sounds a little extreme to me, so I 
pointed out that this issue is not black and white.  There is a risk 
associated with it, and I believe Tango devs have minimized the risk, while 
still protecting their rights as developers for code Walter doesn't need.


 The answer is, either Walter accepts that Sean (and others who gave
 permission) are the rightful owners of the Tango runtime, and he has
 permission to use it, or Walter is so paranoid that he trusts nobody who
 says they own code, and he doesn't use it.  He needs to have some faith 
 that
 the person who says they own the code actually does.


 i gather you don't quite read all messages. walt don't want to deliver a 
 compiler with code he can't control. he must deliver code he can change. 
 if that code works with tango walt must know what he gotta do. to do so he 
 must look at tango. sean is cool with that. kris and lars "mi" ivar arent.


You gather incorrectly.  You also have not understood that Tango is split 
into runtime and user code.  Walter needs to look at the Tango-runtime code, 
not Tango-user code.  And for that, he has the permission he needs (from 
Sean).  He doesn't need permission from Kris and Lars because they don't 
modify the runtime code.

And nobody is claiming that Walter can't control the Tango code that he 
uses.  Without any extra permission, I can copy the Tango code, and modify 
it to my hearts content, release it in binary and source form till the day I 
die, as long as I give the original authors credit.  I think Walter 
understands that view as he has the SAME REQUIREMENTS on Phobos.

What I have understood from the messages is that he does not want to look at 
tango in case he (in the future) writes something similar to the tango code 
without realizing it, and gets blamed for copyright infringement.  If he 
only looks at the runtime code, he shouldn't have anything to worry about.


 I don't believe that you would do so. But by requiring Tango to be
 placed in the public domain, you're allowing everyone else to do so.


 he didn't require tango to be placed in the public domain. he asked for
 the same deal he gave to tango. actually he didn't even ask. he just
 mentioned what it takes for him to look at the code.


 I agree with you on this, but the fact still remains that Walter is not 
 safe
 as soon as he looks at any code, no matter who says they wrote it, unless 
 he
 himself wrote it.  I think this is taking it a little too extreme.


 yeah, ur interpretation. that's extreme.


It's just a possibility, not what I think is likely :)  In anything like 
this, there is always *some* risk.  That is what I was trying to convey.


 The BSD license is simply public domain with attribution.


 No, it is not. Public Domain code is not copyrighted and does not
 require a license.


  >

 So what is the issue with using it? Phobos already uses it. Just 
 with
 your name as the copyright holder.

 Or do you want an agreement to allow relicensing of Phobos and 
 Tango,
 let's say to incompatible licenses, and still allow Phobos and 
 Tango
 to share code afterward?

 It's unclear what you want or need that you don't already have.


 The problems are two:

 1. Phobos has already been accused of stealing code from Tango.
 Therefore, I would like explicit permission from the Tango team. I 
 am
 not going to take code from Tango and put it in Phobos without 
 explicit
 permission from the Tango team. Any hint of Phobos not having a 
 clean
 legal pedigree will impair its adoption.


 The BSD license is explicit permission. Or do you intend to 
 redistribute
 Tango code without proper attribution?


 no. he just wants to escape the tyranny of slander. he's just worried 
 that
 a tyrangot will _claim_ walt redistributed tango code without proper
 attribution.


 The owners have given him permission, and promised not to slander.


 now i am sure u read every other message in this thread. go back and 
 read'em all.


No need, I remember everything :)


  Anyone
 who cries foul after the rightful owners have given permission is full of
 crap, and I will be the first to say so.


 no permission was given. do you like me post drunk sometimes.


Quote from Sean: "As the author of this code, I've long since given my 
permission.  I
believe that's all that's necessary."

Quote from Walter: "In order for Phobos to move towards compatibility, I 
need a reciprocal
statement from the Tango team. The Tango license does not allow this,
and I try to be very careful in making sure Phobos is clean from a legal
standpoint.

Sean and Don have been most generous in offering such"

Which should be enough.  Sean is the owner of the code he needs, nobody else 
on the Tango team owns the runtime code.  Sean has even sent Walter a 
package file with the code he owns which (quote from Walter): "is probably 
sufficient to get compatibility, in which
case that is plenty good enough."

So it looks like he has what he needs legally and technically to get it 
done.  I might be wrong, but his recent posts sound like he is now satisfied 
with what he has.


  So long as Walter and co. just
 look at the proper files (the ones with the permission).  Hell, I don't 
 care
 if he looks at all of tango, as long as he either doesn't copy the code, 
 or
 if he does, obeys the license requirements.


 _you_ don't care. others can't wait. they cried foul as soon as there was 
 potential code could've been copied. gorramit. at least if there was da 
 momma of all code. but it's java containers net stack log4j etc. just how 
 many ways could log4j be in d.


I wasn't here for that.  I don't know what was said or who said it, but 
there is a history of Phobos/Tango bad blood that I really am not a part of, 
and can't really comment on.  All I can say is that, although the wounds 
seem to still exist, the two parties both seem interested in resolving this 
problem.

And there is a huge investment of time and energy into Tango.  The 
developers have every right to ensure that nobody else claims they wrote it. 
I don't think Walter needs blanket permission to circumvent that.


 I don't think any Tango devs are waiting to jump on Walter at the first
 chance Phobos is compatible with Tango.  I think everyone in Tango is
 interested in having Phobos and Tango compatible.


 would be great but don't quite look like it. why don't u do some homework 
 and read messages. i took 2 days. then talk.


I read as they come in, and respond as I read.  You are completely wrong if 
you think the Tango people don't want this resolved.

-Steve
Aug 15 2008
parent reply Vincent Richomme <forumer smartmobili.com> writes:
Steven Schveighoffer a écrit :

 "superdan" wrote

 Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:


 "superdan" wrote

 Christopher Wright Wrote:


 Walter Bright wrote:

 Christopher Wright wrote:

 A number of modules in phobos/internal are marked public domain. 
 Are
 you asking for Tango's internals to be placed in the public domain?
 That also is a bit much to ask.


 Why is it a bit much to ask?


 The BSD license allows anyone to do anything with the work as long as
 the authors get proper recognition. The one incentive to distribute 
 the
 work is this recognition (besides encouraging others to help with the
 project).

 If you're not going to take any Tango code and claim that it is yours,
 then the BSD license shouldn't cause any problems for you. If you
 require public domain, that implies that the BSD license causes 
 problems
 for you. That implies that you're going to steal code.


 you're not following what walt says eh. his problem is not he wanna 
 steal
 and get away with it. problem is that he doesn't wanna be accused of
 stealing. poop man. he got accused before even lookin' at the gorram
 thing. also his problem is not he doesn't wanna acknowledge whodunit. i
 grepped around phobos and there's many names in there. there's even a 
 guy
 whos name is in there tho all his stuff has been rewritten since.

 what walt wanna is look at tango without fear that some dood will cry 
 he
 stole his code. after all there's only this many ways you can do 
 trivial
 sh... stuff like async i/o and logging and containers. slander comes
 easily and goes not so easily. is he paranoid? sure as hell he is. oh,
 wait. some dood _did_ cry walt stole (thru brad) his precious soon as 
 they
 was within a hundred miles. all this while walt is known to give credit
 down to the dog pooping in the driveway walt was looking at when he 
 came
 with an idea. give me an intercoursing break.


 The problem is, there is never a guarantee of that.  Joe Shmoe can come
 along and claim that he works with Sean and Sean stole all his D Thread 
 code
 and gave it to tango.  Now, even though the entire Tango team has given
 permission to Walter, he is still in trouble.


 do you want us to participate in a dialog. or revel in improbable 
 possibilities. this is a red herring.


 
 I'm glad you see the futility in it :)  I was going off of the messages that 
 said that the owners of the runtime gave permission, but for some reason 
 Walter still refused to look at the runtime package that Sean sent.  What I 
 read in other messages (yes, I've read every one, except for the rant on 
 copyrights and pirating) is that he accepts that Sean (and others) gave 
 permission, but it's possible that some of the other Tango devs had a hand 
 in the runtime (even though they don't claim authorship), and so he wants 
 the permission of ALL the Tango devs.  Sounds a little extreme to me, so I 
 pointed out that this issue is not black and white.  There is a risk 
 associated with it, and I believe Tango devs have minimized the risk, while 
 still protecting their rights as developers for code Walter doesn't need.
 

 The answer is, either Walter accepts that Sean (and others who gave
 permission) are the rightful owners of the Tango runtime, and he has
 permission to use it, or Walter is so paranoid that he trusts nobody who
 says they own code, and he doesn't use it.  He needs to have some faith 
 that
 the person who says they own the code actually does.


 i gather you don't quite read all messages. walt don't want to deliver a 
 compiler with code he can't control. he must deliver code he can change. 
 if that code works with tango walt must know what he gotta do. to do so he 
 must look at tango. sean is cool with that. kris and lars "mi" ivar arent.


 
 You gather incorrectly.  You also have not understood that Tango is split 
 into runtime and user code.  Walter needs to look at the Tango-runtime code, 
 not Tango-user code.  And for that, he has the permission he needs (from 
 Sean).  He doesn't need permission from Kris and Lars because they don't 
 modify the runtime code.
 
 And nobody is claiming that Walter can't control the Tango code that he 
 uses.  Without any extra permission, I can copy the Tango code, and modify 
 it to my hearts content, release it in binary and source form till the day I 
 die, as long as I give the original authors credit.  I think Walter 
 understands that view as he has the SAME REQUIREMENTS on Phobos.
 
 What I have understood from the messages is that he does not want to look at 
 tango in case he (in the future) writes something similar to the tango code 
 without realizing it, and gets blamed for copyright infringement.  If he 
 only looks at the runtime code, he shouldn't have anything to worry about.
 

 I don't believe that you would do so. But by requiring Tango to be
 placed in the public domain, you're allowing everyone else to do so.


 he didn't require tango to be placed in the public domain. he asked for
 the same deal he gave to tango. actually he didn't even ask. he just
 mentioned what it takes for him to look at the code.


 I agree with you on this, but the fact still remains that Walter is not 
 safe
 as soon as he looks at any code, no matter who says they wrote it, unless 
 he
 himself wrote it.  I think this is taking it a little too extreme.


 yeah, ur interpretation. that's extreme.


 
 It's just a possibility, not what I think is likely :)  In anything like 
 this, there is always *some* risk.  That is what I was trying to convey.
 

 The BSD license is simply public domain with attribution.


 No, it is not. Public Domain code is not copyrighted and does not
 require a license.


  >

 So what is the issue with using it? Phobos already uses it. Just 
 with
 your name as the copyright holder.

 Or do you want an agreement to allow relicensing of Phobos and 
 Tango,
 let's say to incompatible licenses, and still allow Phobos and 
 Tango
 to share code afterward?

 It's unclear what you want or need that you don't already have.


 The problems are two:

 1. Phobos has already been accused of stealing code from Tango.
 Therefore, I would like explicit permission from the Tango team. I 
 am
 not going to take code from Tango and put it in Phobos without 
 explicit
 permission from the Tango team. Any hint of Phobos not having a 
 clean
 legal pedigree will impair its adoption.


 The BSD license is explicit permission. Or do you intend to 
 redistribute
 Tango code without proper attribution?


 no. he just wants to escape the tyranny of slander. he's just worried 
 that
 a tyrangot will _claim_ walt redistributed tango code without proper
 attribution.


 The owners have given him permission, and promised not to slander.


 now i am sure u read every other message in this thread. go back and 
 read'em all.


 
 No need, I remember everything :)
 

  Anyone
 who cries foul after the rightful owners have given permission is full of
 crap, and I will be the first to say so.


 no permission was given. do you like me post drunk sometimes.


 
 Quote from Sean: "As the author of this code, I've long since given my 
 permission.  I
 believe that's all that's necessary."
 
 Quote from Walter: "In order for Phobos to move towards compatibility, I 
 need a reciprocal
 statement from the Tango team. The Tango license does not allow this,
 and I try to be very careful in making sure Phobos is clean from a legal
 standpoint.
 
 Sean and Don have been most generous in offering such"
 
 Which should be enough.  Sean is the owner of the code he needs, nobody else 
 on the Tango team owns the runtime code.  Sean has even sent Walter a 
 package file with the code he owns which (quote from Walter): "is probably 
 sufficient to get compatibility, in which
 case that is plenty good enough."
 
 So it looks like he has what he needs legally and technically to get it 
 done.  I might be wrong, but his recent posts sound like he is now satisfied 
 with what he has.
 

  So long as Walter and co. just
 look at the proper files (the ones with the permission).  Hell, I don't 
 care
 if he looks at all of tango, as long as he either doesn't copy the code, 
 or
 if he does, obeys the license requirements.


 _you_ don't care. others can't wait. they cried foul as soon as there was 
 potential code could've been copied. gorramit. at least if there was da 
 momma of all code. but it's java containers net stack log4j etc. just how 
 many ways could log4j be in d.


 
 I wasn't here for that.  I don't know what was said or who said it, but 
 there is a history of Phobos/Tango bad blood that I really am not a part of, 
 and can't really comment on.  All I can say is that, although the wounds 
 seem to still exist, the two parties both seem interested in resolving this 
 problem.
 
 And there is a huge investment of time and energy into Tango.  The 
 developers have every right to ensure that nobody else claims they wrote it. 
 I don't think Walter needs blanket permission to circumvent that.
 

 I don't think any Tango devs are waiting to jump on Walter at the first
 chance Phobos is compatible with Tango.  I think everyone in Tango is
 interested in having Phobos and Tango compatible.


 would be great but don't quite look like it. why don't u do some homework 
 and read messages. i took 2 days. then talk.


 
 I read as they come in, and respond as I read.  You are completely wrong if 
 you think the Tango people don't want this resolved.
 
 -Steve 
 
 


I don't really understand all this battle between Phobos and Tango but I 
would like to express my feeling as a user.
I am working for a few months on cross-compilers for embedded platforms 
and I have started with wince.
My first idea was to build specific libraries with an approach inspired 
from Java or .Net Worlds and I didn't want to use phobos nor tango.
First I thought that everything I need was the D compiler with no 
runtime at all and I could built my lib beyond it but I think it doesn't 
work like that.
I only hope this issue will be solved quickly and we 'll get a common 
runtime.
Aug 15 2008
parent Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
Vincent Richomme wrote:

 Steven Schveighoffer a écrit :

 "superdan" wrote

 Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:


 "superdan" wrote

 Christopher Wright Wrote:


 Walter Bright wrote:

 Christopher Wright wrote:

 A number of modules in phobos/internal are marked public domain. 
 Are
 you asking for Tango's internals to be placed in the public domain?
 That also is a bit much to ask.


 Why is it a bit much to ask?


 The BSD license allows anyone to do anything with the work as long as
 the authors get proper recognition. The one incentive to 
 distribute the
 work is this recognition (besides encouraging others to help with the
 project).

 If you're not going to take any Tango code and claim that it is 
 yours,
 then the BSD license shouldn't cause any problems for you. If you
 require public domain, that implies that the BSD license causes 
 problems
 for you. That implies that you're going to steal code.


 you're not following what walt says eh. his problem is not he wanna 
 steal
 and get away with it. problem is that he doesn't wanna be accused of
 stealing. poop man. he got accused before even lookin' at the gorram
 thing. also his problem is not he doesn't wanna acknowledge 
 whodunit. i
 grepped around phobos and there's many names in there. there's even 
 a guy
 whos name is in there tho all his stuff has been rewritten since.

 what walt wanna is look at tango without fear that some dood will 
 cry he
 stole his code. after all there's only this many ways you can do 
 trivial
 sh... stuff like async i/o and logging and containers. slander comes
 easily and goes not so easily. is he paranoid? sure as hell he is. oh,
 wait. some dood _did_ cry walt stole (thru brad) his precious soon 
 as they
 was within a hundred miles. all this while walt is known to give 
 credit
 down to the dog pooping in the driveway walt was looking at when he 
 came
 with an idea. give me an intercoursing break.


 The problem is, there is never a guarantee of that.  Joe Shmoe can come
 along and claim that he works with Sean and Sean stole all his D 
 Thread code
 and gave it to tango.  Now, even though the entire Tango team has given
 permission to Walter, he is still in trouble.


 do you want us to participate in a dialog. or revel in improbable 
 possibilities. this is a red herring.


 I'm glad you see the futility in it :)  I was going off of the 
 messages that said that the owners of the runtime gave permission, but 
 for some reason Walter still refused to look at the runtime package 
 that Sean sent.  What I read in other messages (yes, I've read every 
 one, except for the rant on copyrights and pirating) is that he 
 accepts that Sean (and others) gave permission, but it's possible that 
 some of the other Tango devs had a hand in the runtime (even though 
 they don't claim authorship), and so he wants the permission of ALL 
 the Tango devs.  Sounds a little extreme to me, so I pointed out that 
 this issue is not black and white.  There is a risk associated with 
 it, and I believe Tango devs have minimized the risk, while still 
 protecting their rights as developers for code Walter doesn't need.


 The answer is, either Walter accepts that Sean (and others who gave
 permission) are the rightful owners of the Tango runtime, and he has
 permission to use it, or Walter is so paranoid that he trusts nobody 
 who
 says they own code, and he doesn't use it.  He needs to have some 
 faith that
 the person who says they own the code actually does.


 i gather you don't quite read all messages. walt don't want to 
 deliver a compiler with code he can't control. he must deliver code 
 he can change. if that code works with tango walt must know what he 
 gotta do. to do so he must look at tango. sean is cool with that. 
 kris and lars "mi" ivar arent.


 You gather incorrectly.  You also have not understood that Tango is 
 split into runtime and user code.  Walter needs to look at the 
 Tango-runtime code, not Tango-user code.  And for that, he has the 
 permission he needs (from Sean).  He doesn't need permission from Kris 
 and Lars because they don't modify the runtime code.

 And nobody is claiming that Walter can't control the Tango code that 
 he uses.  Without any extra permission, I can copy the Tango code, and 
 modify it to my hearts content, release it in binary and source form 
 till the day I die, as long as I give the original authors credit.  I 
 think Walter understands that view as he has the SAME REQUIREMENTS on 
 Phobos.

 What I have understood from the messages is that he does not want to 
 look at tango in case he (in the future) writes something similar to 
 the tango code without realizing it, and gets blamed for copyright 
 infringement.  If he only looks at the runtime code, he shouldn't have 
 anything to worry about.


 I don't believe that you would do so. But by requiring Tango to be
 placed in the public domain, you're allowing everyone else to do so.


 he didn't require tango to be placed in the public domain. he asked 
 for
 the same deal he gave to tango. actually he didn't even ask. he just
 mentioned what it takes for him to look at the code.


 I agree with you on this, but the fact still remains that Walter is 
 not safe
 as soon as he looks at any code, no matter who says they wrote it, 
 unless he
 himself wrote it.  I think this is taking it a little too extreme.


 yeah, ur interpretation. that's extreme.


 It's just a possibility, not what I think is likely :)  In anything 
 like this, there is always *some* risk.  That is what I was trying to 
 convey.


 The BSD license is simply public domain with attribution.


 No, it is not. Public Domain code is not copyrighted and does not
 require a license.


  >

 So what is the issue with using it? Phobos already uses it. Just 
 with
 your name as the copyright holder.

 Or do you want an agreement to allow relicensing of Phobos and 
 Tango,
 let's say to incompatible licenses, and still allow Phobos and 
 Tango
 to share code afterward?

 It's unclear what you want or need that you don't already have.


 The problems are two:

 1. Phobos has already been accused of stealing code from Tango.
 Therefore, I would like explicit permission from the Tango team. 
 I am
 not going to take code from Tango and put it in Phobos without 
 explicit
 permission from the Tango team. Any hint of Phobos not having a 
 clean
 legal pedigree will impair its adoption.


 The BSD license is explicit permission. Or do you intend to 
 redistribute
 Tango code without proper attribution?


 no. he just wants to escape the tyranny of slander. he's just 
 worried that
 a tyrangot will _claim_ walt redistributed tango code without proper
 attribution.


 The owners have given him permission, and promised not to slander.


 now i am sure u read every other message in this thread. go back and 
 read'em all.


 No need, I remember everything :)


  Anyone
 who cries foul after the rightful owners have given permission is 
 full of
 crap, and I will be the first to say so.


 no permission was given. do you like me post drunk sometimes.


 Quote from Sean: "As the author of this code, I've long since given my 
 permission.  I
 believe that's all that's necessary."

 Quote from Walter: "In order for Phobos to move towards compatibility, 
 I need a reciprocal
 statement from the Tango team. The Tango license does not allow this,
 and I try to be very careful in making sure Phobos is clean from a legal
 standpoint.

 Sean and Don have been most generous in offering such"

 Which should be enough.  Sean is the owner of the code he needs, 
 nobody else on the Tango team owns the runtime code.  Sean has even 
 sent Walter a package file with the code he owns which (quote from 
 Walter): "is probably sufficient to get compatibility, in which
 case that is plenty good enough."

 So it looks like he has what he needs legally and technically to get 
 it done.  I might be wrong, but his recent posts sound like he is now 
 satisfied with what he has.


  So long as Walter and co. just
 look at the proper files (the ones with the permission).  Hell, I 
 don't care
 if he looks at all of tango, as long as he either doesn't copy the 
 code, or
 if he does, obeys the license requirements.


 _you_ don't care. others can't wait. they cried foul as soon as there 
 was potential code could've been copied. gorramit. at least if there 
 was da momma of all code. but it's java containers net stack log4j 
 etc. just how many ways could log4j be in d.


 I wasn't here for that.  I don't know what was said or who said it, 
 but there is a history of Phobos/Tango bad blood that I really am not 
 a part of, and can't really comment on.  All I can say is that, 
 although the wounds seem to still exist, the two parties both seem 
 interested in resolving this problem.

 And there is a huge investment of time and energy into Tango.  The 
 developers have every right to ensure that nobody else claims they 
 wrote it. I don't think Walter needs blanket permission to circumvent 
 that.


 I don't think any Tango devs are waiting to jump on Walter at the first
 chance Phobos is compatible with Tango.  I think everyone in Tango is
 interested in having Phobos and Tango compatible.


 would be great but don't quite look like it. why don't u do some 
 homework and read messages. i took 2 days. then talk.


 I read as they come in, and respond as I read.  You are completely 
 wrong if you think the Tango people don't want this resolved.

 -Steve


 I don't really understand all this battle between Phobos and Tango but I 
 would like to express my feeling as a user.
 I am working for a few months on cross-compilers for embedded platforms 
 and I have started with wince.
 My first idea was to build specific libraries with an approach inspired 
 from Java or .Net Worlds and I didn't want to use phobos nor tango.
 First I thought that everything I need was the D compiler with no 
 runtime at all and I could built my lib beyond it but I think it doesn't 
 work like that.
 I only hope this issue will be solved quickly and we 'll get a common 
 runtime.


As an aside, I think the most expedient approach for you would be to 
grab the Tango runtime, ignore the user code, and work on creating a 
compiler runtime.  It can contain as much or as little code as you need 
so long as you expose the few functions that the other runtime bits rely 
on.  Tango was built from the ground up with this in mind, since 
basically all of the users of Ares (upon which the Tango runtime is 
based) were kernel and compiler developers.


Sean
Aug 15 2008
prev sibling parent reply Christopher Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> writes:
superdan wrote:

 Christopher Wright Wrote:

 I don't believe that you would do so. But by requiring Tango to be 
 placed in the public domain, you're allowing everyone else to do so.


 
 he didn't require tango to be placed in the public domain. he asked for the
same deal he gave to tango. actually he didn't even ask. he just mentioned what
it takes for him to look at the code.


He wanted permission to license Tango as Phobos is licensed. Phobos was 
licensed in a BSD-like license, but Walter has been changing it to 
public domain.

Walter did explicitly say that he wanted to relicense Tango as public 
domain, I believe.


 The BSD license is explicit permission. Or do you intend to redistribute 
 Tango code without proper attribution?


 
 no. he just wants to escape the tyranny of slander. he's just worried that a
tyrangot will _claim_ walt redistributed tango code without proper attribution.


The accusation was ridiculous. As such, Walter would trivially fulfill 
the requirements of the BSD license.
Aug 15 2008
parent reply "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 09:25:50PM -0400, Christopher Wright wrote:

 The accusation was ridiculous. As such, Walter would trivially fulfill 
 the requirements of the BSD license.


What about the users of the language? Suppose the standard library was
BSD licensed and I wrote a D program. Am I now required to add their
copyright notice with my program whenever I distribute it?

That's a pain in the ass. I like to distribute my programs in binary form
just by giving a link to the .exe saying 'here it is, do whatever you want
with it. Have fun!' With the BSD license restrictions, I couldn't do that.

The license in the phobos files is perfect for me. That's how a standard
library should be licensed - infinitely convenient.

-- 
Adam D. Ruppe
http://arsdnet.net
Aug 15 2008
parent lihong <llzyf sina.com> writes:
We offer World of Warcraft Power Leveling and World of Warcraft
powerleveling,Age of Conan Powerleveling and Lord fo Ring Online
Powerleveling.WoW Powerleveling service and cheap wow Powerleveling,World of
Warcraft Power leveling sale for you. AOC Power leveling,Cheap AOC
Powerleveling .All service is faster,safer,and cheaper.We Please remember,we
are your online game helper.
<a href=http://www.pvpsale.com>WOW Powerleveling</a>
<a href=http://www.pvpsale.com/powerleveling.asp>WOW Power leveling</a>
<a href=http://www.pvpsale.com/World-of-Warcraft-US-Powerleveling.asp>World of
Warcraft Powerleveling</a>
<a href=http://www.pvpsale.com/World-of-Warcraft-EU-Powerleveling.asp>World of
Warcraft power leveling</a>
<a href=http://www.pvpsale.com/World-of-Warcraft-US-Gold.asp>wow gold</a>
<a href=http://www.pvpsale.com/World-of-Warcraft-EU-Gold.asp>wow gold</a>
<a href=http://www.pvpsale.com/Age-of-Conan-Powerleveling.html>Age of Conan
Powerleveling</a>
<a href=http://www.pvpsale.com/Age-of-Conan-Power-leveling.html>Age of Conan
Power leveling</a>
<a href=http://www.pvpsale.com/AOC-Powerleveling.asp>AOC Powerleveling</a>
<a href=http://www.pvpsale.com/AOC-Power-leveling.asp>AOC Power leveling</a>
<a href=http://www.pvpsale.com/AOC-Powerleveling.html>AOC Powerleveling</a>
<a href=http://www.pvpsale.com/AOC-Power-leveling.html>AOC Power leveling</a>
<a href=http://www.pvpsale.com/Final-Fantasy-XI-Gil.asp>Final Fantasy XI Gil</a>
<a href=http://www.pvpsale.com/Final-Fantasy-XI.asp>FFXI Gil</a>
<a href=http://www.pvpsale.com/Florensia-Gold.asp>Florensia Gold</a>
<a href=http://www.pvpsale.com/Dekaron-EU.asp>Dekaron Dil</a>
<a href=http://www.pvpsale.com/Requiem-Online.asp>Requiem Gold</a>
<a href=http://www.pvpsale.com/Rohan-Online.asp>Rohan Gold</a>
<a href=http://www.pvpsale.com/Warhammer-Online-Powerleveling.asp>Warhammer
Powerleveling</a>
<a href=http://www.pvpsale.com/Warhammer-Online.asp>Warhammer Online</a>
Aug 15 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
"Walter Bright" wrote

 Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:

 I have explained this to the main Tango developers on multiple
 occasions. It is their right and privilege to license Tango as they see
 fit, and I respect that and so have not spoken out on it before. But in
 this thread I am being cast as a roadblock, which I feel is a little
 unfair, so I will loosen my tongue and speak up a bit :-)


 And we have on equally many occasions told you that the code you need is
 available. :)


 I respectfully disagree. The Tango team has stopped short of providing a 
 license to use the Tango code in Phobos with a reciprocal agreement that 
 allows it to be distributed under the Phobos license. I also cannot accept 
 something vague, it has to be explicit.

 I've dealt with lawyers many times, and spelling it out directly and 
 explicitly avoids a lot of future potential problems. Furthermore, if 
 Phobos has a wishy-washy legal pedigree, corporate lawyers will not buy 
 off on allowing D to be used in their companies.

 This issue must be settled in advance of looking at Tango, not after the 
 fact.


The BSD license of Tango is here 
http://www.dsource.org/projects/tango/wiki/BSDLicense
The license of Phobos is here 
http://www.dsource.org/projects/phobos/browser/trunk/phobos/phoboslicense.txt

These license texts are almost identical.  Both say that you can freely 
distribute the library in source or binary form, as long as you retain the 
license.  Two differences I see.  One, the Phobos license requires you to 
identify if you have changed the file.  Two, the Phobos license is more lax 
on requiring acknowledgement for binaries.  But you can't claim you wrote 
the binary completely without giving acknowledgement (at least, that's my 
interpretation).

I don't want to point any fingers, all I want to do is help resolve the 
situation.

From Walter's camp, are these licenses really THAT different for you to 
believe that Phobos will be split into 2 licenses?  And even if it is, who 
cares?  The license is so similar, you simply include both for the Phobos 
runtime.  Many pieces of software have long lists of acknowledgements and 
licenses in their binary distribution (i.e. portions of this software 
copyright ...)

From Tango's camp, the Phobos license is very similar, couldn't you allow 
licensing the runtime under the Phobos license as well?  I can't see how it 
would hurt, the Phobos license is only slightly more restrictive, but still 
is in the same spirit of the BSD license.  The one thing it lacks is an 
absolute requirement for acknowledgement in binary form, but it is required 
if you claim authorship of software or distribute in source form.  So nobody 
can go around claiming they wrote Tango, but if they claim any authorship of 
anything, Tango must be there.

Someone's got to give here, maybe there is just a lack of communication, or 
maybe there are deeper issues under the surface... To me, this is a no 
brainer.  If the license is the only thing stopping you, fix it.  I'm 
willing to help in any way I can.  Please set any bad blood aside for this 
one issue.

-Steve
Aug 14 2008
parent reply Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 "Walter Bright" wrote

 Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:

 I have explained this to the main Tango developers on multiple
 occasions. It is their right and privilege to license Tango as they see
 fit, and I respect that and so have not spoken out on it before. But in
 this thread I am being cast as a roadblock, which I feel is a little
 unfair, so I will loosen my tongue and speak up a bit :-)


 And we have on equally many occasions told you that the code you need is
 available. :)


 I respectfully disagree. The Tango team has stopped short of providing a 
 license to use the Tango code in Phobos with a reciprocal agreement that 
 allows it to be distributed under the Phobos license. I also cannot accept 
 something vague, it has to be explicit.

 I've dealt with lawyers many times, and spelling it out directly and 
 explicitly avoids a lot of future potential problems. Furthermore, if 
 Phobos has a wishy-washy legal pedigree, corporate lawyers will not buy 
 off on allowing D to be used in their companies.

 This issue must be settled in advance of looking at Tango, not after the 
 fact.


 
 The BSD license of Tango is here 
 http://www.dsource.org/projects/tango/wiki/BSDLicense
 The license of Phobos is here 
 http://www.dsource.org/projects/phobos/browser/trunk/phobos/phoboslicense.txt
 
 These license texts are almost identical.  Both say that you can freely 
 distribute the library in source or binary form, as long as you retain the 
 license.  Two differences I see.  One, the Phobos license requires you to 
 identify if you have changed the file.  Two, the Phobos license is more lax 
 on requiring acknowledgement for binaries.  But you can't claim you wrote 
 the binary completely without giving acknowledgement (at least, that's my 
 interpretation).


This documentation requirement for binaries is why Tango adopted a dual 
license scheme.  In prior jobs I'd never be able to get a corporate 
lawyer to approve the use of a library containing such a requirement, 
and I wanted to be able to use Tango at work someday :-)


 From Tango's camp, the Phobos license is very similar, couldn't you allow 
 licensing the runtime under the Phobos license as well?  I can't see how it 
 would hurt, the Phobos license is only slightly more restrictive, but still 
 is in the same spirit of the BSD license.  The one thing it lacks is an 
 absolute requirement for acknowledgement in binary form, but it is required 
 if you claim authorship of software or distribute in source form.  So nobody 
 can go around claiming they wrote Tango, but if they claim any authorship of 
 anything, Tango must be there.


Releasing code into the public domain relinquishes any right to claim 
authorship as well.  I provided permission for Walter to use the runtime 
code as PD anyway, with the request that Phobos, at least, mention me as 
the author / contributor as appropriate.  But I think it's asking a lot 
that other Tango contributors do the same... particularly when all their 
contributions are user code.  If this permission were given, Walter 
could quite legally take all of Tango, relabel it as Phobos and 
distribute it as his own.  Not that I expect him to, but it would be 
within his rights to do so.


Sean
Aug 14 2008
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Sean Kelly wrote:

  If this permission were given, Walter
 could quite legally take all of Tango, relabel it as Phobos and 
 distribute it as his own.  Not that I expect him to, but it would be 
 within his rights to do so.


So could anyone with code in Phobos that I wrote and labeled Public 
Domain. This hardly seems to be a sensible strategy to feed megalomania <g>.

Falsely claiming ownership of public domain code is a futile gesture, as 
the internet record of these things is not going away, and it would just 
make the person that tried it a pathetic, obvious fraud.

Bottom line, I don't want the license in Phobos to be any impediment to 
anyone wanting to use D.
Aug 14 2008
parent Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeiros+spam com.gmail> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 Sean Kelly wrote:

  If this permission were given, Walter
 could quite legally take all of Tango, relabel it as Phobos and 
 distribute it as his own.  Not that I expect him to, but it would be 
 within his rights to do so.


 
 So could anyone with code in Phobos that I wrote and labeled Public 
 Domain. This hardly seems to be a sensible strategy to feed megalomania 
 <g>.
 
 Falsely claiming ownership of public domain code is a futile gesture, as 
 the internet record of these things is not going away, and it would just 
 make the person that tried it a pathetic, obvious fraud.
 
 Bottom line, I don't want the license in Phobos to be any impediment to 
 anyone wanting to use D.


Then, regardless of the Tango-Phobos runtime integration discussion, 
what do you say about Sean's comment that Phobos license might still 
pose some problems is certain situations?

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - Software Developer, MSc. in CS/E graduate
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D
Aug 15 2008
prev sibling parent reply Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:

 I have explained this to the main Tango developers on multiple
 occasions. It is their right and privilege to license Tango as they see
 fit, and I respect that and so have not spoken out on it before. But in
 this thread I am being cast as a roadblock, which I feel is a little
 unfair, so I will loosen my tongue and speak up a bit :-)


 And we have on equally many occasions told you that the code you need is
 available. :)


 
 I respectfully disagree. The Tango team has stopped short of providing a 
 license to use the Tango code in Phobos with a reciprocal agreement that 
 allows it to be distributed under the Phobos license. I also cannot 
 accept something vague, it has to be explicit.
 
 I've dealt with lawyers many times, and spelling it out directly and 
 explicitly avoids a lot of future potential problems. Furthermore, if 
 Phobos has a wishy-washy legal pedigree, corporate lawyers will not buy 
 off on allowing D to be used in their companies.


Personally, I've never met a corporate lawyer who would authorize use of 
Public Domain code, for two reasons.  First, the assumption seems to be 
that PD code is really actually owned by someone and no one knows who 
that is.  Second, lawyers (and build teams even moreso) very much like 
having a responsible party, even if the license absolves the author of 
any direct responsibility for code issues as most licenses do.

Case in point, I've never been able to use Boost at any of my previous 
jobs because the licensing scheme is too open.  Also, I've had to fight 
tooth and nail to use BSD licensed code at work because of the 
attribution requirement (that the library must be mentioned in 
documentation accompanying any shipped product).

All of the above was considered when working out a licensing scheme for 
Tango.  We wanted a license that would allow Tango to be used by 
everyone, first and foremost.  I could never have done that with Phobos 
under the current license.


 This issue must be settled in advance of looking at Tango, not after the 
 fact.


The contention is about the user code, I believe.  You have asked for 
blanket permission to incorporate all of Tango as Public Domain code in 
Phobos even though the only portion of the code you seem to care about 
is the runtime.  As the sole maintainer of the runtime I have long since 
given you permission to use that portion of the code as you see fit, but 
this is obviously not sufficient.  I honestly have no idea how we can 
proceed any further, given that I don't expect other Tango contributors 
to agree to release their (user) code into the Public Domain.


Sean
Aug 14 2008
parent reply Moritz Warning <moritzwarning web.de> writes:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:49:06 -0700, Sean Kelly wrote:


 Walter Bright wrote:

 Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:

 I have explained this to the main Tango developers on multiple
 occasions. It is their right and privilege to license Tango as they
 see fit, and I respect that and so have not spoken out on it before.
 But in this thread I am being cast as a roadblock, which I feel is a
 little unfair, so I will loosen my tongue and speak up a bit :-)


 And we have on equally many occasions told you that the code you need
 is available. :)


 
 I respectfully disagree. The Tango team has stopped short of providing
 a license to use the Tango code in Phobos with a reciprocal agreement
 that allows it to be distributed under the Phobos license. I also
 cannot accept something vague, it has to be explicit.
 
 I've dealt with lawyers many times, and spelling it out directly and
 explicitly avoids a lot of future potential problems. Furthermore, if
 Phobos has a wishy-washy legal pedigree, corporate lawyers will not buy
 off on allowing D to be used in their companies.


 
 Personally, I've never met a corporate lawyer who would authorize use of
 Public Domain code, for two reasons.  First, the assumption seems to be
 that PD code is really actually owned by someone and no one knows who
 that is.  Second, lawyers (and build teams even moreso) very much like
 having a responsible party, even if the license absolves the author of
 any direct responsibility for code issues as most licenses do.
 
 Case in point, I've never been able to use Boost at any of my previous
 jobs because the licensing scheme is too open.  Also, I've had to fight
 tooth and nail to use BSD licensed code at work because of the
 attribution requirement (that the library must be mentioned in
 documentation accompanying any shipped product).
 
 All of the above was considered when working out a licensing scheme for
 Tango.  We wanted a license that would allow Tango to be used by
 everyone, first and foremost.  I could never have done that with Phobos
 under the current license.
 

 This issue must be settled in advance of looking at Tango, not after
 the fact.


 
 The contention is about the user code, I believe.  You have asked for
 blanket permission to incorporate all of Tango as Public Domain code in
 Phobos even though the only portion of the code you seem to care about
 is the runtime.  As the sole maintainer of the runtime I have long since
 given you permission to use that portion of the code as you see fit, but
 this is obviously not sufficient.  I honestly have no idea how we can
 proceed any further, given that I don't expect other Tango contributors
 to agree to release their (user) code into the Public Domain.
 
 
 Sean


That issue will probably be sorted out (I hope).
But that don't have to be done right now.

There is no license issue with the Tango runtime,
Work could be started with the runtime any time. - right?
Walter? Sean?
Aug 14 2008
parent Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
== Quote from Moritz Warning (moritzwarning web.de)'s article

 On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:49:06 -0700, Sean Kelly wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:

 Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:

 I have explained this to the main Tango developers on multiple
 occasions. It is their right and privilege to license Tango as they
 see fit, and I respect that and so have not spoken out on it before.
 But in this thread I am being cast as a roadblock, which I feel is a
 little unfair, so I will loosen my tongue and speak up a bit :-)


 And we have on equally many occasions told you that the code you need
 is available. :)


 I respectfully disagree. The Tango team has stopped short of providing
 a license to use the Tango code in Phobos with a reciprocal agreement
 that allows it to be distributed under the Phobos license. I also
 cannot accept something vague, it has to be explicit.

 I've dealt with lawyers many times, and spelling it out directly and
 explicitly avoids a lot of future potential problems. Furthermore, if
 Phobos has a wishy-washy legal pedigree, corporate lawyers will not buy
 off on allowing D to be used in their companies.


 Personally, I've never met a corporate lawyer who would authorize use of
 Public Domain code, for two reasons.  First, the assumption seems to be
 that PD code is really actually owned by someone and no one knows who
 that is.  Second, lawyers (and build teams even moreso) very much like
 having a responsible party, even if the license absolves the author of
 any direct responsibility for code issues as most licenses do.

 Case in point, I've never been able to use Boost at any of my previous
 jobs because the licensing scheme is too open.  Also, I've had to fight
 tooth and nail to use BSD licensed code at work because of the
 attribution requirement (that the library must be mentioned in
 documentation accompanying any shipped product).

 All of the above was considered when working out a licensing scheme for
 Tango.  We wanted a license that would allow Tango to be used by
 everyone, first and foremost.  I could never have done that with Phobos
 under the current license.


 This issue must be settled in advance of looking at Tango, not after
 the fact.


 The contention is about the user code, I believe.  You have asked for
 blanket permission to incorporate all of Tango as Public Domain code in
 Phobos even though the only portion of the code you seem to care about
 is the runtime.  As the sole maintainer of the runtime I have long since
 given you permission to use that portion of the code as you see fit, but
 this is obviously not sufficient.  I honestly have no idea how we can
 proceed any further, given that I don't expect other Tango contributors
 to agree to release their (user) code into the Public Domain.


 Sean


 That issue will probably be sorted out (I hope).
 But that don't have to be done right now.
 There is no license issue with the Tango runtime,
 Work could be started with the runtime any time. - right?
 Walter? Sean?


I think so, but Walter apparently disagrees.


Sean
Aug 14 2008
prev sibling parent reply Nick B <nick.barbalich gmail.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 Paul D. Anderson wrote:

 But what I
 would really like to see (and I don't think it's asking too much) is
 a clear statement from Walter that he will indeed make the changes
 the Tango developers are asking for at some future date.


 
 In order for this to happen, I need a clear and unambiguous statement 
 from the Tango developers that Phobos can incorporate parts of the Tango 
 runtime and place them under the Phobos license. I have already provided 
 a reciprocal license to Tango.
 
 I've asked for that for over a year, and so far only Sean and Don have 
 done so.
 
 Such an agreement is necessary for the following reasons:
 
 1. To ensure Phobos is free of any legal taint and any accusations of 
 stealing code.
 
 2. To avoid the untenable issue of a single module in Phobos having 
 different license for different lines of code.
 
 I have explained this to the main Tango developers on multiple 
 occasions. It is their right and privilege to license Tango as they see 
 fit, and I respect that and so have not spoken out on it before. But in 
 this thread I am being cast as a roadblock, which I feel is a little 
 unfair, so I will loosen my tongue and speak up a bit :-)


[Don wrote] The number of people that have touched the runtime layer of 
Tango is very limited.

Walter has confirmed that Sean & Don gave given him the legal statement 
he requires.

So who are the other Tango developers who have submitted code for the 
runtime layer ?

Would these developers like to comment as to why they would, or would 
not, like to give such a legal statement to Walter ?

Nick B.
Aug 14 2008
parent Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
Nick B wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:

 Paul D. Anderson wrote:

 But what I
 would really like to see (and I don't think it's asking too much) is
 a clear statement from Walter that he will indeed make the changes
 the Tango developers are asking for at some future date.


 In order for this to happen, I need a clear and unambiguous statement 
 from the Tango developers that Phobos can incorporate parts of the 
 Tango runtime and place them under the Phobos license. I have already 
 provided a reciprocal license to Tango.

 I've asked for that for over a year, and so far only Sean and Don have 
 done so.

 Such an agreement is necessary for the following reasons:

 1. To ensure Phobos is free of any legal taint and any accusations of 
 stealing code.

 2. To avoid the untenable issue of a single module in Phobos having 
 different license for different lines of code.

 I have explained this to the main Tango developers on multiple 
 occasions. It is their right and privilege to license Tango as they 
 see fit, and I respect that and so have not spoken out on it before. 
 But in this thread I am being cast as a roadblock, which I feel is a 
 little unfair, so I will loosen my tongue and speak up a bit :-)


 
 [Don wrote] The number of people that have touched the runtime layer of 
 Tango is very limited.
 
 Walter has confirmed that Sean & Don gave given him the legal statement 
 he requires.
 
 So who are the other Tango developers who have submitted code for the 
 runtime layer ?


Mikola Lysenko is the only one I can think of offhand, as Tango's Fiber 
implementation is based on his StackThreads.  Steve S. may be listed as 
a contributor for the Thread code as well.


 Would these developers like to comment as to why they would, or would 
 not, like to give such a legal statement to Walter ?


As the author of this code, I've long since given my permission.  I 
believe that's all that's necessary.


Sean
Aug 14 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent Tiago Carvalho <merlin3000 gmail.com> writes:
Sean Kelly Wrote:


 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 "Walter Bright" wrote

 Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:

 I have explained this to the main Tango developers on multiple
 occasions. It is their right and privilege to license Tango as they see
 fit, and I respect that and so have not spoken out on it before. But in
 this thread I am being cast as a roadblock, which I feel is a little
 unfair, so I will loosen my tongue and speak up a bit :-)


 And we have on equally many occasions told you that the code you need is
 available. :)


 I respectfully disagree. The Tango team has stopped short of providing a 
 license to use the Tango code in Phobos with a reciprocal agreement that 
 allows it to be distributed under the Phobos license. I also cannot accept 
 something vague, it has to be explicit.

 I've dealt with lawyers many times, and spelling it out directly and 
 explicitly avoids a lot of future potential problems. Furthermore, if 
 Phobos has a wishy-washy legal pedigree, corporate lawyers will not buy 
 off on allowing D to be used in their companies.

 This issue must be settled in advance of looking at Tango, not after the 
 fact.


 
 The BSD license of Tango is here 
 http://www.dsource.org/projects/tango/wiki/BSDLicense
 The license of Phobos is here 
 http://www.dsource.org/projects/phobos/browser/trunk/phobos/phoboslicense.txt
 
 These license texts are almost identical.  Both say that you can freely 
 distribute the library in source or binary form, as long as you retain the 
 license.  Two differences I see.  One, the Phobos license requires you to 
 identify if you have changed the file.  Two, the Phobos license is more lax 
 on requiring acknowledgement for binaries.  But you can't claim you wrote 
 the binary completely without giving acknowledgement (at least, that's my 
 interpretation).


 
 This documentation requirement for binaries is why Tango adopted a dual 
 license scheme.  In prior jobs I'd never be able to get a corporate 
 lawyer to approve the use of a library containing such a requirement, 
 and I wanted to be able to use Tango at work someday :-)
 

 From Tango's camp, the Phobos license is very similar, couldn't you allow 
 licensing the runtime under the Phobos license as well?  I can't see how it 
 would hurt, the Phobos license is only slightly more restrictive, but still 
 is in the same spirit of the BSD license.  The one thing it lacks is an 
 absolute requirement for acknowledgement in binary form, but it is required 
 if you claim authorship of software or distribute in source form.  So nobody 
 can go around claiming they wrote Tango, but if they claim any authorship of 
 anything, Tango must be there.


 
 Releasing code into the public domain relinquishes any right to claim 
 authorship as well.  I provided permission for Walter to use the runtime 
 code as PD anyway, with the request that Phobos, at least, mention me as 
 the author / contributor as appropriate.  But I think it's asking a lot 
 that other Tango contributors do the same... particularly when all their 
 contributions are user code.  If this permission were given, Walter 
 could quite legally take all of Tango, relabel it as Phobos and 
 distribute it as his own.  Not that I expect him to, but it would be 
 within his rights to do so.
 
 
 Sean


I'm not an active participant in this thread, but I'm a anxious reader and
hoping all gets decided here and now. Probaly It will be best to create a topic
just to solve the little things between phobos and tango people that concern
the general user.

I just have one comment are you sure that once something is released to public
domain "...relinquishes any right to claim  authorship as well.", because here
in Portugal everything that is done by a person is automatically protected as
belonging to him. Registering the work and other things like patents (patents
probably have other stuff but not relevant to my point) just help to garanty
proof that it was made by that person. But unless it's specified otherwise no
one can touch anything someone did. 

But what really relate to what you said is that, the only thing the author
cannot do is denie autorship. If he made it, it's his, he can sell, give away
everything (like the right to be used in any way, by anyone) except the right
to be the author. It's called a undeniable "moral" right. And it just seems
such a universal right that I repeat my question are you sure that authorship
can be just given up?

This is to Walter now... it seems Tango coders would be willing to share Tango
if they were to be quoted as authors of that piece of code, independently of
the license used (sorry if I misunderstood). So I ask Walter if that is the
only thing asked, does it still cause any troubles?

Sorry for the english.
Aug 14 2008
prev sibling parent reply bobef <bobef nosmap-abv.bg> writes:
Robert Fraser Wrote:

 Yigal Chripun Wrote:
 

 Robert Fraser wrote:
  > I've had very mixed feelings about all this. One one hand, the letter
 of the

 law may be questionably constitutional. But millions of dollars every day are
 lost because people (including myself occasionally...) steal copyrighted
 material. Honestly, I think there should be much stricter penalties for
 things like internet piracy, because it's simply so widespread and damaging.


 
 Of course you have the right to have your own opinion (that's also in
 the constitution) but all of the above is bullshit. (sorry for the
 language).
 
 stealing only applies to physical things like chairs and cars. that
 whole metaphor of information as physical entities is wrong.
 you sure can infringe someone's copyrights but you cannot steal anything
 since there's nothing to steal.


 
 Some philosopher said that all philosophical debates were inherently
 linguistic ones that stemmed from not having the words to represent the
 concepts being spoken about. We're using different definitions of "steal,"
 but the concept is clear -- it's taking something you don't have the right
 to have taken without paying for, and the debate is over whether you do
 or should have that right.
 


This discussion is, of course, pointless but since I read it I may also comment
:) I wan to support Yigal Chripun. So you say stealing is "taking something".
But information (and software) is not something. It is not something you can
take. I "pirate" something and I have my copy and you have yours. Nothing have
been taken all are happy. This is actually a good thing. Too bad food doesn't
work this way. The problem is greed. It has nothing to do with stealing.


 I think what a lot of these arguments boil down to is people trying to
 justify taking stuff without paying for it. Plain and simple. I do on occasion
 download videos (these days only anime fansubs).  And I don't feel bad
 about it. But I do know it's stealing. Downloading a $10 CD is really
 no better than shoplifting a $10 CD, because the people who worked to
 bring that CD into existence are not being paid for it.


It is not the same as shoplifting as you are not depriving anyone from
anything. So you are not stealing anything. It is moral (and that is relative)
to pay for the author's work, but only if you like it. When you buy a CD with
14 shitty songs because you are exposed to advertising of one good one, why
don't you pay 1/15 of the price? This is more stealing than "pirating" because
you are actually mislead to buy something that you would normally not buy
because it sucks.

I have had similar discussions but how can you explain my mother who works for
150$ a month (and she needs to eat pay bills, etc with these) that she has to
pay MS 500$ for their software that is what? Pixels? Bytes? What?

Anyway. In my opinion it comes down to greed cause no one is stealing anything.
Just some people are not willing to share although they are not losing
anything. And to lose something you must own it. So you can't lose a million
dollars of sales because you haven't sold anything in the first place. If
authors were more conscious (less greedy) they would share because if the users
were more conscious (less living in a society where everyone wants to *make
you* pay for something) they would show gratitude by paying.

Regards,
bobef
Aug 14 2008
next sibling parent reply "Koroskin Denis" <2korden gmail.com> writes:
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 10:14:32 +0400, bobef <bobef nosmap-abv.bg> wrote:


 Robert Fraser Wrote:

 Yigal Chripun Wrote:


 Robert Fraser wrote:
  > I've had very mixed feelings about all this. One one hand, the  


 letter

 of the

 law may be questionably constitutional. But millions of dollars  




 every day are

 lost because people (including myself occasionally...) steal  




 copyrighted

 material. Honestly, I think there should be much stricter penalties  




 for

 things like internet piracy, because it's simply so widespread and  




 damaging.

 Of course you have the right to have your own opinion (that's also in
 the constitution) but all of the above is bullshit. (sorry for the
 language).

 stealing only applies to physical things like chairs and cars. that
 whole metaphor of information as physical entities is wrong.
 you sure can infringe someone's copyrights but you cannot steal  


 anything

 since there's nothing to steal.


 Some philosopher said that all philosophical debates were inherently
 linguistic ones that stemmed from not having the words to represent the
 concepts being spoken about. We're using different definitions of  
 "steal,"
 but the concept is clear -- it's taking something you don't have the  
 right
 to have taken without paying for, and the debate is over whether you do
 or should have that right.


 This discussion is, of course, pointless but since I read it I may also  
 comment :) I wan to support Yigal Chripun. So you say stealing is  
 "taking something". But information (and software) is not something. It  
 is not something you can take. I "pirate" something and I have my copy  
 and you have yours. Nothing have been taken all are happy. This is  
 actually a good thing. Too bad food doesn't work this way. The problem  
 is greed. It has nothing to do with stealing.


 I think what a lot of these arguments boil down to is people trying to
 justify taking stuff without paying for it. Plain and simple. I do on  
 occasion
 download videos (these days only anime fansubs).  And I don't feel bad
 about it. But I do know it's stealing. Downloading a $10 CD is really
 no better than shoplifting a $10 CD, because the people who worked to
 bring that CD into existence are not being paid for it.


 It is not the same as shoplifting as you are not depriving anyone from  
 anything. So you are not stealing anything. It is moral (and that is  
 relative) to pay for the author's work, but only if you like it. When  
 you buy a CD with 14 shitty songs because you are exposed to advertising  
 of one good one, why don't you pay 1/15 of the price? This is more  
 stealing than "pirating" because you are actually mislead to buy  
 something that you would normally not buy because it sucks.

 I have had similar discussions but how can you explain my mother who  
 works for 150$ a month (and she needs to eat pay bills, etc with these)  
 that she has to pay MS 500$ for their software that is what? Pixels?  
 Bytes? What?

 Anyway. In my opinion it comes down to greed cause no one is stealing  
 anything. Just some people are not willing to share although they are  
 not losing anything. And to lose something you must own it. So you can't  
 lose a million dollars of sales because you haven't sold anything in the  
 first place. If authors were more conscious (less greedy) they would  
 share because if the users were more conscious (less living in a society  
 where everyone wants to *make you* pay for something) they would show  
 gratitude by paying.

 Regards,
 bobef


Can't stand away of the topic.

My company was making PSP game and it leaks to the pirate bay two weeks  
before official release. Isn't it a stealing? Did my company give someone  
a permission to redistribute its software? Yes, you can't buy the game  
officially for a time being, but so can't others. Is it an excuse for you?  
There is an agreement between us and a publisher, they have a schedule and  
can't put a game in a wrong timeline. It's a bussiness, some marketing  
needs to be done, hard copies be made and transfered all over the world  
etc.

A game was something we were working on for more that half a year, lots of  
effort were put in it. Do we deserve a payment and respect?

In fact, a game was downloaded about 500.000 times before it got to the  
shelves. And about a 100.000 copies were sold _in total_. We got no profit  
just because everything out there are so poor and can't afford a licensed  
copy. What the hell you were thinking about before buying a handheld? An  
answer is - you are just too greedy and don't respect others efforts.  
Shame on you.

As a result we don't make PSP games anymore and you don't get any games  
 from us. And from lots of other developers, too. You harm not only  
yourself, but many of the other fair people who _do_ pay for their  
entertainment.

My old good PSOne has the following text upon loading many of the games -  
I remember it word-by-word:
"Piracy harms consumers as well as legitimate developers, publishers and  
retailers." So true.
Aug 15 2008
parent reply downs <default_357-line yahoo.de> writes:
Koroskin Denis wrote:

 On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 10:14:32 +0400, bobef <bobef nosmap-abv.bg> wrote:
 

 Robert Fraser Wrote:

 Yigal Chripun Wrote:


 Robert Fraser wrote:
  > I've had very mixed feelings about all this. One one hand, the


 letter

 of the

 law may be questionably constitutional. But millions of dollars




 every day are

 lost because people (including myself occasionally...) steal




 copyrighted

 material. Honestly, I think there should be much stricter




 penalties for

 things like internet piracy, because it's simply so widespread




 and damaging.

 Of course you have the right to have your own opinion (that's also in
 the constitution) but all of the above is bullshit. (sorry for the
 language).

 stealing only applies to physical things like chairs and cars. that
 whole metaphor of information as physical entities is wrong.
 you sure can infringe someone's copyrights but you cannot steal


 anything

 since there's nothing to steal.


 Some philosopher said that all philosophical debates were inherently
 linguistic ones that stemmed from not having the words to represent the
 concepts being spoken about. We're using different definitions of
 "steal,"
 but the concept is clear -- it's taking something you don't have the
 right
 to have taken without paying for, and the debate is over whether you do
 or should have that right.


 This discussion is, of course, pointless but since I read it I may
 also comment :) I wan to support Yigal Chripun. So you say stealing is
 "taking something". But information (and software) is not something.
 It is not something you can take. I "pirate" something and I have my
 copy and you have yours. Nothing have been taken all are happy. This
 is actually a good thing. Too bad food doesn't work this way. The
 problem is greed. It has nothing to do with stealing.


 I think what a lot of these arguments boil down to is people trying to
 justify taking stuff without paying for it. Plain and simple. I do on
 occasion
 download videos (these days only anime fansubs).  And I don't feel bad
 about it. But I do know it's stealing. Downloading a $10 CD is really
 no better than shoplifting a $10 CD, because the people who worked to
 bring that CD into existence are not being paid for it.


 It is not the same as shoplifting as you are not depriving anyone from
 anything. So you are not stealing anything. It is moral (and that is
 relative) to pay for the author's work, but only if you like it. When
 you buy a CD with 14 shitty songs because you are exposed to
 advertising of one good one, why don't you pay 1/15 of the price? This
 is more stealing than "pirating" because you are actually mislead to
 buy something that you would normally not buy because it sucks.

 I have had similar discussions but how can you explain my mother who
 works for 150$ a month (and she needs to eat pay bills, etc with
 these) that she has to pay MS 500$ for their software that is what?
 Pixels? Bytes? What?

 Anyway. In my opinion it comes down to greed cause no one is stealing
 anything. Just some people are not willing to share although they are
 not losing anything. And to lose something you must own it. So you
 can't lose a million dollars of sales because you haven't sold
 anything in the first place. If authors were more conscious (less
 greedy) they would share because if the users were more conscious
 (less living in a society where everyone wants to *make you* pay for
 something) they would show gratitude by paying.

 Regards,
 bobef


 
 Can't stand away of the topic.
 
 My company was making PSP game and it leaks to the pirate bay two weeks
 before official release. Isn't it a stealing?


Nope.


 Did my company give
 someone a permission to redistribute its software?


Nope, but I don't see how that changes the terminology.


 Yes, you can't buy
 the game officially for a time being, but so can't others. Is it an
 excuse for you? There is an agreement between us and a publisher, they
 have a schedule and can't put a game in a wrong timeline. It's a
 bussiness, some marketing needs to be done, hard copies be made and
 transfered all over the world etc.
 
 A game was something we were working on for more that half a year, lots
 of effort were put in it. Do we deserve a payment and respect?
 


Nope. That's the free market - you "deserve" nothing implicitly.


 In fact, a game was downloaded about 500.000 times before it got to the
 shelves. And about a 100.000 copies were sold _in total_. We got no
 profit just because everything out there are so poor and can't afford a
 licensed copy. What the hell you were thinking about before buying a
 handheld? An answer is - you are just too greedy and don't respect
 others efforts. Shame on you.


How did this become about us?


 
 As a result we don't make PSP games anymore and you don't get any games
 from us. And from lots of other developers, too. You harm not only
 yourself, but many of the other fair people who _do_ pay for their
 entertainment.


Again, when did this become personal?


 
 My old good PSOne has the following text upon loading many of the games
 - I remember it word-by-word:
 "Piracy harms consumers as well as legitimate developers, publishers and
 retailers." So true.


Note that they used the word "Piracy". Not "Stealing".

I wish you'd remember that more.
Aug 15 2008
parent reply Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:
downs wrote:


 
 Note that they used the word "Piracy". Not "Stealing".
 
 I wish you'd remember that more.


Yeah, because capturing vessels on the high seas has a lot more in 
common with illegally obtaining copyable goods than "stealing" does.
Aug 16 2008
next sibling parent downs <default_357-line yahoo.de> writes:
Mike Parker wrote:

 downs wrote:
 

 Note that they used the word "Piracy". Not "Stealing".

 I wish you'd remember that more.


 
 Yeah, because capturing vessels on the high seas has a lot more in
 common with illegally obtaining copyable goods than "stealing" does.


Verily, I have gotten 'burned'.
Aug 16 2008
prev sibling parent reply Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com> writes:
Mike Parker wrote:

 downs wrote:
 

 Note that they used the word "Piracy". Not "Stealing".

 I wish you'd remember that more.


 
 Yeah, because capturing vessels on the high seas has a lot more in
 common with illegally obtaining copyable goods than "stealing" does.


Why can't we fu*king call the dog by his name?
when a person infringes someone else' copyrights he's not pirating (as
you said it, pirating is "capturing vessels on the high seas") and he's
not stealing. that person _*infringes*_ someone else' copyrights.
Why is that so difficult for people to use the correct word?
infringe. here I just used it myself. If anyone has deep issues with
that we can also use "violate". no need to invent new words for an
already well defined concept just to satisfy someone's (MPAA, RIAA, etc)
PR goals.
Aug 16 2008
next sibling parent reply downs <default_357-line yahoo.de> writes:
Yigal Chripun wrote:

 Mike Parker wrote:

 downs wrote:


 Note that they used the word "Piracy". Not "Stealing".

 I wish you'd remember that more.


 Yeah, because capturing vessels on the high seas has a lot more in
 common with illegally obtaining copyable goods than "stealing" does.


 
 Why can't we fu*king call the dog by his name?
 when a person infringes someone else' copyrights he's not pirating (as
 you said it, pirating is "capturing vessels on the high seas") and he's
 not stealing. that person _*infringes*_ someone else' copyrights.
 Why is that so difficult for people to use the correct word?
 infringe. here I just used it myself. If anyone has deep issues with
 that we can also use "violate". no need to invent new words for an
 already well defined concept just to satisfy someone's (MPAA, RIAA, etc)
 PR goals.


"Infringing a copyright": 7 syllables.

"Pirating": 3 syllables.

"Stealing": 2 syllables.

Sad but true.
Aug 16 2008
next sibling parent Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com> writes:
downs wrote:

 Yigal Chripun wrote:

 Mike Parker wrote:

 downs wrote:


 Note that they used the word "Piracy". Not "Stealing".

 I wish you'd remember that more.


 Yeah, because capturing vessels on the high seas has a lot more in
 common with illegally obtaining copyable goods than "stealing" does.


 Why can't we fu*king call the dog by his name?
 when a person infringes someone else' copyrights he's not pirating (as
 you said it, pirating is "capturing vessels on the high seas") and he's
 not stealing. that person _*infringes*_ someone else' copyrights.
 Why is that so difficult for people to use the correct word?
 infringe. here I just used it myself. If anyone has deep issues with
 that we can also use "violate". no need to invent new words for an
 already well defined concept just to satisfy someone's (MPAA, RIAA, etc)
 PR goals.


 
 "Infringing a copyright": 7 syllables.
 
 "Pirating": 3 syllables.
 
 "Stealing": 2 syllables.
 
 Sad but true.


remember the old rule - each line of code is read 100 times more than
it's written? IMHO this should also apply to NG posts.
Aug 16 2008
prev sibling parent reply superdan <super dan.org> writes:
downs Wrote:


 Yigal Chripun wrote:

 Mike Parker wrote:

 downs wrote:


 Note that they used the word "Piracy". Not "Stealing".

 I wish you'd remember that more.


 Yeah, because capturing vessels on the high seas has a lot more in
 common with illegally obtaining copyable goods than "stealing" does.


 
 Why can't we fu*king call the dog by his name?
 when a person infringes someone else' copyrights he's not pirating (as
 you said it, pirating is "capturing vessels on the high seas") and he's
 not stealing. that person _*infringes*_ someone else' copyrights.
 Why is that so difficult for people to use the correct word?
 infringe. here I just used it myself. If anyone has deep issues with
 that we can also use "violate". no need to invent new words for an
 already well defined concept just to satisfy someone's (MPAA, RIAA, etc)
 PR goals.


 
 "Infringing a copyright": 7 syllables.
 
 "Pirating": 3 syllables.
 
 "Stealing": 2 syllables.
 
 Sad but true.


"what the intercourse are you talking about": 9 syllables.

depressing.
Aug 16 2008
parent reply downs <default_357-line yahoo.de> writes:
superdan wrote:

 downs Wrote:
 

 Yigal Chripun wrote:

 Mike Parker wrote:

 downs wrote:


 Note that they used the word "Piracy". Not "Stealing".

 I wish you'd remember that more.


 Yeah, because capturing vessels on the high seas has a lot more in
 common with illegally obtaining copyable goods than "stealing" does.


 Why can't we fu*king call the dog by his name?
 when a person infringes someone else' copyrights he's not pirating (as
 you said it, pirating is "capturing vessels on the high seas") and he's
 not stealing. that person _*infringes*_ someone else' copyrights.
 Why is that so difficult for people to use the correct word?
 infringe. here I just used it myself. If anyone has deep issues with
 that we can also use "violate". no need to invent new words for an
 already well defined concept just to satisfy someone's (MPAA, RIAA, etc)
 PR goals.


 "Infringing a copyright": 7 syllables.

 "Pirating": 3 syllables.

 "Stealing": 2 syllables.

 Sad but true.


 
 "what the intercourse are you talking about": 9 syllables.
 
 depressing.


"Pirating" is shorter :)

And just to be the grammar nazi for a sec, it's 11.
Aug 16 2008
parent reply superdan <super dan.org> writes:
downs Wrote:


 superdan wrote:

 downs Wrote:
 

 Yigal Chripun wrote:

 Mike Parker wrote:

 downs wrote:


 Note that they used the word "Piracy". Not "Stealing".

 I wish you'd remember that more.


 Yeah, because capturing vessels on the high seas has a lot more in
 common with illegally obtaining copyable goods than "stealing" does.


 Why can't we fu*king call the dog by his name?
 when a person infringes someone else' copyrights he's not pirating (as
 you said it, pirating is "capturing vessels on the high seas") and he's
 not stealing. that person _*infringes*_ someone else' copyrights.
 Why is that so difficult for people to use the correct word?
 infringe. here I just used it myself. If anyone has deep issues with
 that we can also use "violate". no need to invent new words for an
 already well defined concept just to satisfy someone's (MPAA, RIAA, etc)
 PR goals.


 "Infringing a copyright": 7 syllables.

 "Pirating": 3 syllables.

 "Stealing": 2 syllables.

 Sad but true.


 
 "what the intercourse are you talking about": 9 syllables.
 
 depressing.


 
 "Pirating" is shorter :)


ok eh.


 And just to be the grammar nazi for a sec, it's 11.


ooooooooooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

...................

sorry my level of humor rose so fast above yours i got vertigo there for a bit.

hint: it's 9 syllables if you read it the right way.
Aug 16 2008
parent downs <default_357-line yahoo.de> writes:
superdan wrote:

 downs Wrote:
 

 superdan wrote:

 downs Wrote:


 Yigal Chripun wrote:

 Mike Parker wrote:

 downs wrote:


 Note that they used the word "Piracy". Not "Stealing".

 I wish you'd remember that more.


 Yeah, because capturing vessels on the high seas has a lot more in
 common with illegally obtaining copyable goods than "stealing" does.


 Why can't we fu*king call the dog by his name?
 when a person infringes someone else' copyrights he's not pirating (as
 you said it, pirating is "capturing vessels on the high seas") and he's
 not stealing. that person _*infringes*_ someone else' copyrights.
 Why is that so difficult for people to use the correct word?
 infringe. here I just used it myself. If anyone has deep issues with
 that we can also use "violate". no need to invent new words for an
 already well defined concept just to satisfy someone's (MPAA, RIAA, etc)
 PR goals.


 "Infringing a copyright": 7 syllables.

 "Pirating": 3 syllables.

 "Stealing": 2 syllables.

 Sad but true.


 "what the intercourse are you talking about": 9 syllables.

 depressing.


 "Pirating" is shorter :)


 
 ok eh.
 

 And just to be the grammar nazi for a sec, it's 11.


 
 ooooooooooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
 
 ...................
 
 sorry my level of humor rose so fast above yours i got vertigo there for a bit.
 


Hehe.


 hint: it's 9 syllables if you read it the right way.


This isn't really my day.
Aug 16 2008
prev sibling parent superdan <super dan.org> writes:
Yigal Chripun Wrote:


 Mike Parker wrote:

 downs wrote:
 

 Note that they used the word "Piracy". Not "Stealing".

 I wish you'd remember that more.


 
 Yeah, because capturing vessels on the high seas has a lot more in
 common with illegally obtaining copyable goods than "stealing" does.


 
 Why can't we fu*king call the dog by his name?


ain't it funny. ever since i stopped fuckshitting everyone and their dog
started. funniest is jarrett. first he emails like an unsexed victorian damsel
in distress "learn to type like a normal person or i'll have a syncope right
here. oh! oh! my minerals quick!" next day he's cursing like a sailor in
baltimore. not that there are any. guys the dirty talk is pathetic. you don't
have the frame for it. if i can do it in style don't let that fool ya. ok?
Aug 16 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:
bobef wrote:

 Robert Fraser Wrote:

 Yigal Chripun Wrote:


 Robert Fraser wrote:
  > I've had very mixed feelings about all this. One one hand, the letter
 of the

 law may be questionably constitutional. But millions of dollars every day are
 lost because people (including myself occasionally...) steal copyrighted
 material. Honestly, I think there should be much stricter penalties for
 things like internet piracy, because it's simply so widespread and damaging.


 Of course you have the right to have your own opinion (that's also in
 the constitution) but all of the above is bullshit. (sorry for the
 language).

 stealing only applies to physical things like chairs and cars. that
 whole metaphor of information as physical entities is wrong.
 you sure can infringe someone's copyrights but you cannot steal anything
 since there's nothing to steal.


 Some philosopher said that all philosophical debates were inherently
 linguistic ones that stemmed from not having the words to represent the
 concepts being spoken about. We're using different definitions of "steal,"
 but the concept is clear -- it's taking something you don't have the right
 to have taken without paying for, and the debate is over whether you do
 or should have that right.


 This discussion is, of course, pointless but since I read it I may also
comment :) I wan to support Yigal Chripun. So you say stealing is "taking
something". But information (and software) is not something. It is not
something you can take. I "pirate" something and I have my copy and you have
yours. Nothing have been taken all are happy. This is actually a good thing.
Too bad food doesn't work this way. The problem is greed. It has nothing to do
with stealing.
 


Yeah, all are happy. I'm sure the developer is ecstatic that you have no 
respect for him or the effort he put into developing his software. He'll 
be extremely glad to know that one more person thinks he doesn't deserve 
  the same right to make a living that producers of physical goods 
enjoy. He'll be jumping for joy when enough people out there like you 
dash his dreams of working as a full-time developer and he has to go out 
and find another job to put food on the table. Oh, happy days!

Software *is* something. Just because it is infinitely copyable doesn't 
give you the right to copy it. No one has the right to take something 
someone else has created without the creator's permission. I'm sure we 
can agree that if you want a chair I've crafted and I want to charge you 
for it, then I am well within my right to do so. How is it that when my 
creation is infinitely copyable, I suddenly lose that right? I've heard 
this argument many, many, many times, but it still makes no sense to me. 
True, when you copy my infinitely copyable creation I'm not losing a 
physical object, but I *am* losing something -- compensation for the 
time and effort I put into it. It takes a heck of a lot longer to 
develop, test and debug a software application than it does to craft a 
chair. So why do you think developers shouldn't be afforded the same 
right as a craftsman? What gives you the right, in my stead, to decide 
if my product should be freely available?

And don't come at me with that 'information should be free' crap. 
Software is not information. It's a product.
Aug 15 2008
parent reply downs <default_357-line yahoo.de> writes:
Mike Parker wrote:

 bobef wrote:

 Robert Fraser Wrote:

 Yigal Chripun Wrote:


 Robert Fraser wrote:
  > I've had very mixed feelings about all this. One one hand, the
 letter
 of the

 law may be questionably constitutional. But millions of dollars
 every day are
 lost because people (including myself occasionally...) steal
 copyrighted
 material. Honestly, I think there should be much stricter penalties
 for
 things like internet piracy, because it's simply so widespread and
 damaging.


 Of course you have the right to have your own opinion (that's also in
 the constitution) but all of the above is bullshit. (sorry for the
 language).

 stealing only applies to physical things like chairs and cars. that
 whole metaphor of information as physical entities is wrong.
 you sure can infringe someone's copyrights but you cannot steal
 anything
 since there's nothing to steal.


 Some philosopher said that all philosophical debates were inherently
 linguistic ones that stemmed from not having the words to represent the
 concepts being spoken about. We're using different definitions of
 "steal,"
 but the concept is clear -- it's taking something you don't have the
 right
 to have taken without paying for, and the debate is over whether you do
 or should have that right.


 This discussion is, of course, pointless but since I read it I may
 also comment :) I wan to support Yigal Chripun. So you say stealing is
 "taking something". But information (and software) is not something.
 It is not something you can take. I "pirate" something and I have my
 copy and you have yours. Nothing have been taken all are happy. This
 is actually a good thing. Too bad food doesn't work this way. The
 problem is greed. It has nothing to do with stealing.


 
 Yeah, all are happy. I'm sure the developer is ecstatic that you have no
 respect for him or the effort he put into developing his software. He'll
 be extremely glad to know that one more person thinks he doesn't deserve
  the same right to make a living that producers of physical goods enjoy.


Bullshit. There is no such thing as "right to make a living".


 He'll be jumping for joy when enough people out there like you dash his
 dreams of working as a full-time developer and he has to go out and find
 another job to put food on the table. Oh, happy days!


There are two kind of arguments: logical arguments and emotional arguments.
Guess which yours is.


 
 Software *is* something. Just because it is infinitely copyable doesn't
 give you the right to copy it. No one has the right to take something
 someone else has created without the creator's permission.


This is a common illusion. (I blame Disney).

The right to exclusivity is granted to the creator, by the state, for a certain
period of time. It does not exist "by default".


 I'm sure we
 can agree that if you want a chair I've crafted and I want to charge you
 for it, then I am well within my right to do so.


Could we PLEASE keep the comparisons to physical goods out of it? NOT. THE
SAME. THING.


 How is it that when my
 creation is infinitely copyable, I suddenly lose that right?


Because you don't lose the original anymore. This has been said hundreds of
times.


 I've heard
 this argument many, many, many times, but it still makes no sense to me.
 True, when you copy my infinitely copyable creation I'm not losing a
 physical object, but I *am* losing something -- compensation for the
 time and effort I put into it.


Which, by the way, is not a right. Are people normally bound to buy your
physical goods?


 It takes a heck of a lot longer to
 develop, test and debug a software application than it does to craft a
 chair.


Maybe for cheap chairs.


 So why do you think developers shouldn't be afforded the same
 right as a craftsman? What gives you the right, in my stead, to decide
 if my product should be freely available?
 


See above.


 And don't come at me with that 'information should be free' crap.
 Software is not information. It's a product.


Software is purely information. "Software is a product" is a relatively novel
idea that, I believe, was invented by our friends at MS (though I cannot point
at a source for that claim).
Aug 15 2008
next sibling parent reply "Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> writes:
"downs" <default_357-line yahoo.de> wrote in message 
news:g84gml$1rb1$1 digitalmars.com...


 Software is purely information. "Software is a product" is a relatively 
 novel idea that, I believe, was invented by our friends at MS (though I 
 cannot point at a source for that claim).


Oh don't give me that bullshit.  If anything, another company came up with 
the idea and MS bought them out ;)
Aug 15 2008
parent reply Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:

 "downs" <default_357-line yahoo.de> wrote in message 
 news:g84gml$1rb1$1 digitalmars.com...
 

 Software is purely information. "Software is a product" is a relatively 
 novel idea that, I believe, was invented by our friends at MS (though I 
 cannot point at a source for that claim).


 
 Oh don't give me that bullshit.  If anything, another company came up with 
 the idea and MS bought them out ;) 
 


Oh, come on! "software is a product" makes sense -- as in "you buy it 
and you can do what you want with it (your copy of it, that is)". I 
believe what MS gave us was "software is licensed, and you can only do 
with it what we say you can no matter how much you paid for it". Which 
is more absurd then saying software developers have no right to sell 
their software!
Aug 16 2008
parent "Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> writes:
"Mike Parker" <aldacron gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:g86q1l$2qrv$2 digitalmars.com...

 Jarrett Billingsley wrote:

 "downs" <default_357-line yahoo.de> wrote in message 
 news:g84gml$1rb1$1 digitalmars.com...


 Software is purely information. "Software is a product" is a relatively 
 novel idea that, I believe, was invented by our friends at MS (though I 
 cannot point at a source for that claim).


 Oh don't give me that bullshit.  If anything, another company came up 
 with the idea and MS bought them out ;)


 Oh, come on! "software is a product" makes sense -- as in "you buy it and 
 you can do what you want with it (your copy of it, that is)". I believe 
 what MS gave us was "software is licensed, and you can only do with it 
 what we say you can no matter how much you paid for it". Which is more 
 absurd then saying software developers have no right to sell their 
 software!


Oh I agree that MS didn't "come up" with the idea that software is a 
product.  I don't think it ever was a novel concept.  I was just making a 
snarky remark about MS's typical business practices.

Now whether MS came up with the idea of restrictive software licenses -- now 
that really _does_ smell of bullshit and anti-MS-fanboyism.  MS is not the 
only eeeevil monopolistic company out there :P
Aug 16 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent "Jb" <jb nowhere.com> writes:
"downs" <default_357-line yahoo.de> wrote in message 
news:g84gml$1rb1$1 digitalmars.com...

 It takes a heck of a lot longer to
 develop, test and debug a software application than it does to craft a
 chair.


 Maybe for cheap chairs.


You must have so ******* fancy chairs in your house, sorry.. erm..  palace.

;-)
Aug 15 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent reply =?iso-8859-1?Q?Julio=20C=e9sar=20Carrascal=20Urquijo?= <jcarrascal gmail.com> writes:
Hello downs,


 Software is purely information. "Software is a product" is a
 relatively novel idea that, I believe, was invented by our friends at
 MS (though I cannot point at a source for that claim).



Maybe this one:

http://www.blinkenlights.com/classiccmp/gateswhine.html
Aug 15 2008
next sibling parent downs <default_357-line yahoo.de> writes:
Julio César Carrascal Urquijo wrote:

 Hello downs,
 

 Software is purely information. "Software is a product" is a
 relatively novel idea that, I believe, was invented by our friends at
 MS (though I cannot point at a source for that claim).


 
 
 Maybe this one:
 
 http://www.blinkenlights.com/classiccmp/gateswhine.html
 
 


Ah. Looks like they started the "stealing" thing too.

TYVM, MS.
Aug 16 2008
prev sibling parent "Bruce Adams" <tortoise_74 yeah.who.co.uk> writes:
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 21:10:21 +0100, Julio César Carrascal Urquijo  
<jcarrascal gmail.com> wrote:


 Hello downs,


 Software is purely information. "Software is a product" is a
 relatively novel idea that, I believe, was invented by our friends at
 MS (though I cannot point at a source for that claim).



 Maybe this one:

 http://www.blinkenlights.com/classiccmp/gateswhine.html


Whatever happened to that hard-working underpaid idealist? :p
Was that the trigger that turned him into Monty Burns?
Aug 18 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent reply downs <default_357-line yahoo.de> writes:
downs wrote:

 Mike Parker wrote:

 I'm sure we
 can agree that if you want a chair I've crafted and I want to charge you
 for it, then I am well within my right to do so.


 
 Could we PLEASE keep the comparisons to physical goods out of it? NOT. THE
SAME. THING.
 

 How is it that when my
 creation is infinitely copyable, I suddenly lose that right?


 
 Because you don't lose the original anymore. This has been said hundreds of
times.
 


To clarify this point: you still have a *temporary* right to control the
duplication of your infinitely copyable creation.

But it is *not the same right* as the one that allows you to charge for the
chair.
Aug 16 2008
parent reply Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:
downs wrote:

 downs wrote:

 Mike Parker wrote:

 I'm sure we
 can agree that if you want a chair I've crafted and I want to charge you
 for it, then I am well within my right to do so.


 Could we PLEASE keep the comparisons to physical goods out of it? NOT. THE
SAME. THING.




IT. IS. THE SAME. THING.


 How is it that when my
 creation is infinitely copyable, I suddenly lose that right?


 Because you don't lose the original anymore. This has been said hundreds of
times.


 
 To clarify this point: you still have a *temporary* right to control the
duplication of your infinitely copyable creation.
 
 But it is *not the same right* as the one that allows you to charge for the
chair.


But it *is* the same right.

I really didn't expect anyone to give me anything new on this. It's 
always the same arguments back and forth. This is one of those issues 
that people rarely change their minds about.
Aug 16 2008
parent reply downs <default_357-line yahoo.de> writes:
Mike Parker wrote:

 downs wrote:

 downs wrote:

 Mike Parker wrote:

 I'm sure we
 can agree that if you want a chair I've crafted and I want to charge
 you
 for it, then I am well within my right to do so.


 Could we PLEASE keep the comparisons to physical goods out of it?
 NOT. THE SAME. THING.




 
 IT. IS. THE SAME. THING.
 

 How is it that when my
 creation is infinitely copyable, I suddenly lose that right?


 Because you don't lose the original anymore. This has been said
 hundreds of times.


 To clarify this point: you still have a *temporary* right to control
 the duplication of your infinitely copyable creation.

 But it is *not the same right* as the one that allows you to charge
 for the chair.


 
 But it *is* the same right.
 
 I really didn't expect anyone to give me anything new on this. It's
 always the same arguments back and forth. This is one of those issues
 that people rarely change their minds about.


So ..

you are saying property right is the same thing as copyright?
Aug 16 2008
parent reply Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:
downs wrote:

 Mike Parker wrote:

 downs wrote:

 downs wrote:

 Mike Parker wrote:

 I'm sure we
 can agree that if you want a chair I've crafted and I want to charge
 you
 for it, then I am well within my right to do so.


 Could we PLEASE keep the comparisons to physical goods out of it?
 NOT. THE SAME. THING.




 IT. IS. THE SAME. THING.


 How is it that when my
 creation is infinitely copyable, I suddenly lose that right?


 Because you don't lose the original anymore. This has been said
 hundreds of times.


 To clarify this point: you still have a *temporary* right to control
 the duplication of your infinitely copyable creation.

 But it is *not the same right* as the one that allows you to charge
 for the chair.


 But it *is* the same right.

 I really didn't expect anyone to give me anything new on this. It's
 always the same arguments back and forth. This is one of those issues
 that people rarely change their minds about.


 
 So ..
 
 you are saying property right is the same thing as copyright?


No, I'm not. My assertion is that the creator of a thing has a right to 
determine if and how that thing will be distributed to others. The rest 
of the world doesn't suddenly get to decide that they can distribute the 
thing freely just because they can. If I create a PC game, I dictate if 
it's freeware or commercial -- not the users.

Copyright and property rights are different, but I do believe they can, 
and should, work in tandem. I don't agree with the current state of 
copyright law, but let me tell you how I think things /should/ be.

I think the idea of "licensing" music, movies, software, and whatnot is 
absurd. What we need is a law that explicitly defines a purchase of an 
infinitely copyable product as the purchase of "one unit" of that 
product. That particular unit is now your property. You can copy it to 
your heart's content, to CD or DVD, to multiple devices, or anywhere you 
want to use it. That's the right of property that protects the 
consumer's investment.

Copyright law comes into play be preventing you from distributing copies 
of your unit without the copyright owner's permission. No matter how 
many copies you make for your own personal use, only the owner of the 
copyright (most often the creator) gets to dictate the terms of 
distribution. You cannot sell your copies, nor can you give them away to 
your friends. For the duration of the copyright, the owner of the 
copyright has every right to profit from his creation without fear of 
competing with his own product. This right protects the investment of 
the creator.

Of course, people like to argue that they can do what they like with 
their property. If they want to sell it, they should be able to. I 
agree. If you want to give up your right to the unit you purchased and 
sell it to someone else, please do. But then you should be required to 
delete every copy you possess. From that point on, you no longer have 
any right to the unit. This is the same as selling your TV to someone else.

Once the copyright expires, then people can do what they want with it. 
This holds to the original spirit and intent of copyright law -- 
allowing the creator to profit from his work while guaranteeing that it 
will eventually be freely available for all. The gives incentive for 
people to work at creating things full time.

Again, that's how I think things /should/ be. I do understand that 
reality is quite a bit different. Copyright law has been hijacked by 
corporate lobbyists to the extent that it no longer serves the purpose 
it was meant to. The concepts of IP and licensing have gotten so out of 
control (DRM) that they turn people away from what is fair and 
appropriate, instead contributing to a culture of "I can take what I 
want and you greedy corporate asses can stuff it". So we have an 
environment where producers and consumers are focused on "protecting" 
their own rights, but few are working to protect both. In the end, it's 
more than the greedy corporate asses who get hurt by it all.

At the end of the day, everyone has to make a living. Contrary to some 
assertions, I don't see that as an emotional argument. There's nothing 
illogical about the need to put food on the table. No one disputes the 
right of a carpenter to be paid for his work, nor for a doctor to be 
paid for his (though some would dispute the amount). Why, then, is it so 
difficult to accept that a software developer should be compensated for 
his work as well? Or a musician?

Some people argue that business models should change. They already are 
(apologies in advance for this being game-centric). Today, some PC game 
developers are no longer developing games for the PC. They view the 
consoles as safer territory. They are for now. You see a decline in the 
production of single player games. You see more and more games requiring 
online activation, or requiring you to be online to play. These are all 
models geared toward minimizing the damage a company suffers from 
piracy. As such, they limit the options of the end user.

My problem with piracy is not just a moral one, it's also a practical 
one. No one can say for sure where this will all lead. We could very 
well find ourselves in the Utopian paradise so many pirates spout off 
about to justify their actions, a world where people can get music, 
movies, books, and software freely while the creators can live off of 
the donations they receive from hordes of satisfied users (you'll excuse 
me if I hold some doubt that we'll see that result). But we could also 
find ourselves in a world where the independent creators, the garage 
bands and bedroom software developers, have gone the way of the dodo 
because they can't make enough to earn a living full time. A world where 
consumer rights are restricted and we have fewer options available to us 
  in how we access and use creative works.
Aug 16 2008
parent reply Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com> writes:
Mike Parker wrote:

 
 No, I'm not. My assertion is that the creator of a thing has a right to
 determine if and how that thing will be distributed to others. The rest
 of the world doesn't suddenly get to decide that they can distribute the
 thing freely just because they can. If I create a PC game, I dictate if
 it's freeware or commercial -- not the users.


your train of thought here is going backwards. No one "suddenly" decided
to take away the right to control distribution from the creator.
That right never existed in the first place.


 
 Copyright and property rights are different, but I do believe they can,
 and should, work in tandem. I don't agree with the current state of
 copyright law, but let me tell you how I think things /should/ be.
 
 I think the idea of "licensing" music, movies, software, and whatnot is
 absurd. What we need is a law that explicitly defines a purchase of an
 infinitely copyable product as the purchase of "one unit" of that
 product. That particular unit is now your property. You can copy it to
 your heart's content, to CD or DVD, to multiple devices, or anywhere you
 want to use it. That's the right of property that protects the
 consumer's investment.


I agree with you that "licensing" music, movies, software, and whatnot
is absurd.

your idea of defining a "unit" is not implementable.


 
 Copyright law comes into play be preventing you from distributing copies
 of your unit without the copyright owner's permission. No matter how
 many copies you make for your own personal use, only the owner of the
 copyright (most often the creator) gets to dictate the terms of
 distribution. You cannot sell your copies, nor can you give them away to
 your friends. For the duration of the copyright, the owner of the
 copyright has every right to profit from his creation without fear of
 competing with his own product. This right protects the investment of
 the creator.
 
 Of course, people like to argue that they can do what they like with
 their property. If they want to sell it, they should be able to. I
 agree. If you want to give up your right to the unit you purchased and
 sell it to someone else, please do. But then you should be required to
 delete every copy you possess. From that point on, you no longer have
 any right to the unit. This is the same as selling your TV to someone else.
 
 Once the copyright expires, then people can do what they want with it.
 This holds to the original spirit and intent of copyright law --
 allowing the creator to profit from his work while guaranteeing that it
 will eventually be freely available for all. The gives incentive for
 people to work at creating things full time.
 
 Again, that's how I think things /should/ be. I do understand that
 reality is quite a bit different. Copyright law has been hijacked by
 corporate lobbyists to the extent that it no longer serves the purpose
 it was meant to. The concepts of IP and licensing have gotten so out of
 control (DRM) that they turn people away from what is fair and
 appropriate, instead contributing to a culture of "I can take what I
 want and you greedy corporate asses can stuff it". So we have an
 environment where producers and consumers are focused on "protecting"
 their own rights, but few are working to protect both. In the end, it's
 more than the greedy corporate asses who get hurt by it all.
 
 At the end of the day, everyone has to make a living. Contrary to some
 assertions, I don't see that as an emotional argument. There's nothing
 illogical about the need to put food on the table. No one disputes the
 right of a carpenter to be paid for his work, nor for a doctor to be
 paid for his (though some would dispute the amount). Why, then, is it so
 difficult to accept that a software developer should be compensated for
 his work as well? Or a musician?


no one disputes that the artist/software developer should be able to
earn a living.

 
 Some people argue that business models should change. They already are
 (apologies in advance for this being game-centric). Today, some PC game
 developers are no longer developing games for the PC. They view the
 consoles as safer territory. They are for now. You see a decline in the
 production of single player games. You see more and more games requiring
 online activation, or requiring you to be online to play. These are all
 models geared toward minimizing the damage a company suffers from
 piracy. As such, they limit the options of the end user.
 
 My problem with piracy is not just a moral one, it's also a practical
 one. No one can say for sure where this will all lead. We could very
 well find ourselves in the Utopian paradise so many pirates spout off
 about to justify their actions, a world where people can get music,
 movies, books, and software freely while the creators can live off of
 the donations they receive from hordes of satisfied users (you'll excuse
 me if I hold some doubt that we'll see that result). But we could also
 find ourselves in a world where the independent creators, the garage
 bands and bedroom software developers, have gone the way of the dodo
 because they can't make enough to earn a living full time. A world where
 consumer rights are restricted and we have fewer options available to us
  in how we access and use creative works.


let us take the role of an aspiring new musician and compare:
before the age of the internet:
we need to convince some record company representative to listen to our
demo and convince him that it's worthwhile to give us a contract (in
which we give almost all our rights to the company). the company decides
what music to push to the public based on little to none musical
interests (for example if we play classical music, we would create less
sales than Brittney spears and so her music would be preferred - it's
much easier to create hype and therefore sales amongst teenagers who
listen to pop rather than to convince adults to buy classical music CDs)
Now let's consider the current "Internet" way:
we can record music with home equipment and put it on our own site. we
can shoot a home video and put it on youtube, etc.. all with little
costs. we'll tell all our friends about our new site with our new cool
music, those wo like it will tell their friends, etc..
soon (if our music is liked by people) we could go and perform in pubs
and the like and people some people will come. after growing our fan
base we can also sell merchandise on our site, and get more people to go
to our concerts and pay for tickets..

what I'm trying to say here is that allowing free distribution of music
online makes it easier for a young new artist (or software developer) to
 achieve his goals (becoming a known artist). I claim that we'll find
our selves in a world where the independent creators, the garage bands
and bedroom software developers, have _NOT_ gone the way of the dodo but
rather flourish.

Another example - current state of the legal system makes it harder for
two teams of OSS to work together since they are afraid of legal
consequences. (phobos and tango)
in a more free legal system we wouldn't find ourselves waiting for more
than a year since one author is afraid of taint and possibly getting
sued in the future duo to it. the absurd is that both projects provide
freely redistributable code and yet there are still fears of taint.

If you ever watched "sliders" than you'd probably seen the episode where
 they slid to a world with 85% of the population having law degrees. in
that world you had to provide a full health record and a signed and
legally approved note that you wouldn't sue just to buy a hamburger.
Aug 17 2008
next sibling parent reply Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:
Yigal Chripun wrote:

 Mike Parker wrote:

 No, I'm not. My assertion is that the creator of a thing has a right to
 determine if and how that thing will be distributed to others. The rest
 of the world doesn't suddenly get to decide that they can distribute the
 thing freely just because they can. If I create a PC game, I dictate if
 it's freeware or commercial -- not the users.


 
 your train of thought here is going backwards. No one "suddenly" decided
 to take away the right to control distribution from the creator.
 That right never existed in the first place.
 

 Copyright and property rights are different, but I do believe they can,
 and should, work in tandem. I don't agree with the current state of
 copyright law, but let me tell you how I think things /should/ be.

 I think the idea of "licensing" music, movies, software, and whatnot is
 absurd. What we need is a law that explicitly defines a purchase of an
 infinitely copyable product as the purchase of "one unit" of that
 product. That particular unit is now your property. You can copy it to
 your heart's content, to CD or DVD, to multiple devices, or anywhere you
 want to use it. That's the right of property that protects the
 consumer's investment.


 
 I agree with you that "licensing" music, movies, software, and whatnot
 is absurd.
 
 your idea of defining a "unit" is not implementable.


Why not?


 

 Copyright law comes into play be preventing you from distributing copies
 of your unit without the copyright owner's permission. No matter how
 many copies you make for your own personal use, only the owner of the
 copyright (most often the creator) gets to dictate the terms of
 distribution. You cannot sell your copies, nor can you give them away to
 your friends. For the duration of the copyright, the owner of the
 copyright has every right to profit from his creation without fear of
 competing with his own product. This right protects the investment of
 the creator.

 Of course, people like to argue that they can do what they like with
 their property. If they want to sell it, they should be able to. I
 agree. If you want to give up your right to the unit you purchased and
 sell it to someone else, please do. But then you should be required to
 delete every copy you possess. From that point on, you no longer have
 any right to the unit. This is the same as selling your TV to someone else.

 Once the copyright expires, then people can do what they want with it.
 This holds to the original spirit and intent of copyright law --
 allowing the creator to profit from his work while guaranteeing that it
 will eventually be freely available for all. The gives incentive for
 people to work at creating things full time.

 Again, that's how I think things /should/ be. I do understand that
 reality is quite a bit different. Copyright law has been hijacked by
 corporate lobbyists to the extent that it no longer serves the purpose
 it was meant to. The concepts of IP and licensing have gotten so out of
 control (DRM) that they turn people away from what is fair and
 appropriate, instead contributing to a culture of "I can take what I
 want and you greedy corporate asses can stuff it". So we have an
 environment where producers and consumers are focused on "protecting"
 their own rights, but few are working to protect both. In the end, it's
 more than the greedy corporate asses who get hurt by it all.

 At the end of the day, everyone has to make a living. Contrary to some
 assertions, I don't see that as an emotional argument. There's nothing
 illogical about the need to put food on the table. No one disputes the
 right of a carpenter to be paid for his work, nor for a doctor to be
 paid for his (though some would dispute the amount). Why, then, is it so
 difficult to accept that a software developer should be compensated for
 his work as well? Or a musician?


 
 no one disputes that the artist/software developer should be able to
 earn a living.


But you want to take the choice of how they do so out of their hands.


 Some people argue that business models should change. They already are
 (apologies in advance for this being game-centric). Today, some PC game
 developers are no longer developing games for the PC. They view the
 consoles as safer territory. They are for now. You see a decline in the
 production of single player games. You see more and more games requiring
 online activation, or requiring you to be online to play. These are all
 models geared toward minimizing the damage a company suffers from
 piracy. As such, they limit the options of the end user.

 My problem with piracy is not just a moral one, it's also a practical
 one. No one can say for sure where this will all lead. We could very
 well find ourselves in the Utopian paradise so many pirates spout off
 about to justify their actions, a world where people can get music,
 movies, books, and software freely while the creators can live off of
 the donations they receive from hordes of satisfied users (you'll excuse
 me if I hold some doubt that we'll see that result). But we could also
 find ourselves in a world where the independent creators, the garage
 bands and bedroom software developers, have gone the way of the dodo
 because they can't make enough to earn a living full time. A world where
 consumer rights are restricted and we have fewer options available to us
  in how we access and use creative works.


 
 let us take the role of an aspiring new musician and compare:
 before the age of the internet:
 we need to convince some record company representative to listen to our
 demo and convince him that it's worthwhile to give us a contract (in
 which we give almost all our rights to the company). the company decides
 what music to push to the public based on little to none musical
 interests (for example if we play classical music, we would create less
 sales than Brittney spears and so her music would be preferred - it's
 much easier to create hype and therefore sales amongst teenagers who
 listen to pop rather than to convince adults to buy classical music CDs)
 Now let's consider the current "Internet" way:
 we can record music with home equipment and put it on our own site. we
 can shoot a home video and put it on youtube, etc.. all with little
 costs. we'll tell all our friends about our new site with our new cool
 music, those wo like it will tell their friends, etc..
 soon (if our music is liked by people) we could go and perform in pubs
 and the like and people some people will come. after growing our fan
 base we can also sell merchandise on our site, and get more people to go
 to our concerts and pay for tickets..



 
 what I'm trying to say here is that allowing free distribution of music
 online makes it easier for a young new artist (or software developer) to
  achieve his goals (becoming a known artist). I claim that we'll find
 our selves in a world where the independent creators, the garage bands
 and bedroom software developers, have _NOT_ gone the way of the dodo but
 rather flourish.


I don't dispute any of that (well, except the last bit about the future 
of indies). The opportunities opened up by the internet are tremendous, 
and I've taken advantage of them myself to some extent. But you've 
missed the point entirely. I'm not saying we should disallow free 
distribution. That's rather silly. My argument is that *it's the 
creator's choice to sell his product or distribute it freely.*

Just because you like free stuff doesn't mean I have to give my stuff 
away for free. Conversely, just because I like to sell my stuff doesn't 
mean you have to buy it. If we leave things at that, we're all happy 
campers. I'll sell my stuff to people who want to buy it and you can get 
your stuff from people who want to give it away for free. But when you 
start taking my stuff without paying for it, knowing that I'm selling it 
and don't want it given away freely, now you're stepping on my toes and 
infringing my rights.

I can see you are passionate about this, but it reminds me very much of 
the debate over the GPL. This isn't a direct analogy, but the 
circumstances are similar. GPL supporters love to go on about how 
software should be free (as in 'libre'). Ultimately, they wind up 
reducing freedom by dictating that the source of any derived work be 
released under the same terms. True freedom would give developers more 
choice, like the BSD or MIT licenses do. In your arguments, you keep 
going on about how grand it would be for us to have free (as in 
'gratis', which is a different beast than 'libre' for sure) access to 
all of this stuff, but you would implicitly restrict the freedom (as in 
'libre') of the people who produce it by dictating how they should 
distribute it.

Speaking of the GPL, how do you feel about taking GPLed code and using 
it in closed-source, proprietary software that is then distributed to 
your customers freely or commercially (that is, ignoring the terms of 
the GPL altogether)? Is that just as acceptable to you as pirating the 
end product?
Aug 17 2008
parent reply Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com> writes:
Mike Parker wrote:

 no one disputes that the artist/software developer should be able to
 earn a living.


 
 But you want to take the choice of how they do so out of their hands.


Again, I do not take that choice. You claim that a software developer
has the right to decide to treat his software as a product and sell
"units" of it. I claim that such an option does not exist in the first
place. software is information, either you share it or you keep it to
yourself. beyond that there are copy-right laws that _give_ the author a
limited time-span of exclusivity. the software developer doesn't have a
right to exclusivity, he receives it from society for a limited time.
that time span should represent a balance between the fact the published
 work is public domain and the need to make it worthwhile for an
individual to publish his work. current us law is 70 years after the
death of that individual is out of balance entirely.
a more reasonable amount (for software) should be 10-15 years at most.
maybe even less.

 what I'm trying to say here is that allowing free distribution of music
 online makes it easier for a young new artist (or software developer) to
  achieve his goals (becoming a known artist). I claim that we'll find
 our selves in a world where the independent creators, the garage bands
 and bedroom software developers, have _NOT_ gone the way of the dodo but
 rather flourish.


 
 I don't dispute any of that (well, except the last bit about the future
 of indies). The opportunities opened up by the internet are tremendous,
 and I've taken advantage of them myself to some extent. But you've
 missed the point entirely. I'm not saying we should disallow free
 distribution. That's rather silly. My argument is that *it's the
 creator's choice to sell his product or distribute it freely.*


Again, this choice never existed but rather manufactured artificially by
a few groups of interest.


 
 Just because you like free stuff doesn't mean I have to give my stuff
 away for free. Conversely, just because I like to sell my stuff doesn't
 mean you have to buy it. If we leave things at that, we're all happy
 campers. I'll sell my stuff to people who want to buy it and you can get
 your stuff from people who want to give it away for free. But when you
 start taking my stuff without paying for it, knowing that I'm selling it
 and don't want it given away freely, now you're stepping on my toes and
 infringing my rights.


You do not have to publish your work. you can keep it for yourself.
either you give to society or you don't. that's your choice.

 
 I can see you are passionate about this, but it reminds me very much of
 the debate over the GPL. This isn't a direct analogy, but the
 circumstances are similar. GPL supporters love to go on about how
 software should be free (as in 'libre'). Ultimately, they wind up
 reducing freedom by dictating that the source of any derived work be
 released under the same terms. True freedom would give developers more
 choice, like the BSD or MIT licenses do. In your arguments, you keep
 going on about how grand it would be for us to have free (as in
 'gratis', which is a different beast than 'libre' for sure) access to
 all of this stuff, but you would implicitly restrict the freedom (as in
 'libre') of the people who produce it by dictating how they should
 distribute it.


I do not object to OSS that is sold for money (again with the Red hat
example). there is no conflict here with this at all.
another way to look at it is this:
an MP3 file is just information and should be available online, at the
same time there is nothing that prevents the musician to charge money
for his performance. a singer "produces" music by singing (for example).
he does not "produce" MP3 files.
Why don't you pay for each song you here on the radio for example?
when you go to a restaurant do you pay for the taste, the smell or the
food itself?


 
 Speaking of the GPL, how do you feel about taking GPLed code and using
 it in closed-source, proprietary software that is then distributed to
 your customers freely or commercially (that is, ignoring the terms of
 the GPL altogether)? Is that just as acceptable to you as pirating the
 end product?


I feel that the GPL is a necessary evil. It's a hack on top of a broken
system. Ideally, there should be no need for it at all.
Currently the GPL is the exception to the rule. the default is
Closed-source. I'd want it to be the default while closed source would
be the exception.
to answer your question: yes it's wrong to subvert the GPL. The parallel
you're trying to draw here however is not acceptable to me. these are
two separate issues.
Aug 17 2008
next sibling parent Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:
Yigal Chripun wrote:


 You do not have to publish your work. you can keep it for yourself.
 either you give to society or you don't. that's your choice.


See my other post, you are making an artificial distinction yourself between
private and public information. If you think some information truly
can/should be private, then you also need to accept that the author can
keep it private given some condition (ie that you can get access by
paying).

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango
Aug 17 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:
Yigal Chripun wrote:

 Mike Parker wrote:

 no one disputes that the artist/software developer should be able to
 earn a living.


 But you want to take the choice of how they do so out of their hands.


 
 Again, I do not take that choice. You claim that a software developer
 has the right to decide to treat his software as a product and sell
 "units" of it. I claim that such an option does not exist in the first
 place. software is information, either you share it or you keep it to
 yourself. 


Someone else already pointed out to you in this thread your confusion 
over the difference between 'freely available' and 'free of charge'. 
When an entity, like a government, tells you what kind of information 
you can and cannot have access to, that information is no longer freely 
available. If I'm the only person in the world who knows something, I 
might just want to make a tidy profit off of telling it to someone else. 
Nothing whatsoever gives you the right (or, at least at present, the 
ability) to pick it from my brain -- it's available for a price. I might 
even choose to tell it freely, being the good citizen I am. But it's 
/my/ choice.

Commercial software (which I still say isn't information) *is* freely 
available. If it weren't, you wouldn't be able to buy it because no one 
would be allowed to sell it.


 

 Just because you like free stuff doesn't mean I have to give my stuff
 away for free. Conversely, just because I like to sell my stuff doesn't
 mean you have to buy it. If we leave things at that, we're all happy
 campers. I'll sell my stuff to people who want to buy it and you can get
 your stuff from people who want to give it away for free. But when you
 start taking my stuff without paying for it, knowing that I'm selling it
 and don't want it given away freely, now you're stepping on my toes and
 infringing my rights.


 
 You do not have to publish your work. you can keep it for yourself.
 either you give to society or you don't. that's your choice.

 I can see you are passionate about this, but it reminds me very much of
 the debate over the GPL. This isn't a direct analogy, but the
 circumstances are similar. GPL supporters love to go on about how
 software should be free (as in 'libre'). Ultimately, they wind up
 reducing freedom by dictating that the source of any derived work be
 released under the same terms. True freedom would give developers more
 choice, like the BSD or MIT licenses do. In your arguments, you keep
 going on about how grand it would be for us to have free (as in
 'gratis', which is a different beast than 'libre' for sure) access to
 all of this stuff, but you would implicitly restrict the freedom (as in
 'libre') of the people who produce it by dictating how they should
 distribute it.


 
 I do not object to OSS that is sold for money (again with the Red hat
 example). there is no conflict here with this at all.
 another way to look at it is this:
 an MP3 file is just information and should be available online, at the
 same time there is nothing that prevents the musician to charge money
 for his performance. a singer "produces" music by singing (for example).
 he does not "produce" MP3 files.
 Why don't you pay for each song you here on the radio for example?
 when you go to a restaurant do you pay for the taste, the smell or the
 food itself?
 

 Speaking of the GPL, how do you feel about taking GPLed code and using
 it in closed-source, proprietary software that is then distributed to
 your customers freely or commercially (that is, ignoring the terms of
 the GPL altogether)? Is that just as acceptable to you as pirating the
 end product?


 
 I feel that the GPL is a necessary evil. It's a hack on top of a broken
 system. Ideally, there should be no need for it at all.
 Currently the GPL is the exception to the rule. the default is
 Closed-source. I'd want it to be the default while closed source would
 be the exception.
 to answer your question: yes it's wrong to subvert the GPL. The parallel
 you're trying to draw here however is not acceptable to me. these are
 two separate issues.


They very much are the same thing. When you take GPLed source, compile 
it into an executable, and distribute it without adhering to the terms 
of the GPL you are violating the conditions set forth by the copyright 
holders. A recent court decision[1], applying specifically to the 
Artistic License (but which will likely apply to other OSS licenses), 
clearly defines violation of such a license as copyright infringement. 
Both scenarios involve distribution of copyrighted material in a manner 
not permitted by the copyright holders.

I've always been perplexed by how some software developers can be so 
adamant at adhering to OSS licenses while being so cavalier about 
pirating software. It's such a counterintuitive thing. Once upon a time, 
I would have simply argued that your opposition to subverting the GPL 
while in support of subverting copyright law is illogical. Now I can add 
that it's contradicted by the courts.

[1] http://lessig.org/blog/2008/08/huge_and_important_news_free_l.html
Aug 17 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent Jesse Phillips <jessekphillips gmail.com> writes:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 16:41:06 +0300, Yigal Chripun wrote:


 Mike Parker wrote:

 no one disputes that the artist/software developer should be able to
 earn a living.


 
 But you want to take the choice of how they do so out of their hands.


 
 Again, I do not take that choice. You claim that a software developer
 has the right to decide to treat his software as a product and sell
 "units" of it. I claim that such an option does not exist in the first
 place. software is information, either you share it or you keep it to
 yourself. beyond that there are copy-right laws that _give_ the author a
 limited time-span of exclusivity. the software developer doesn't have a
 right to exclusivity, he receives it from society for a limited time.
 that time span should represent a balance between the fact the published
  work is public domain and the need to make it worthwhile for an
 individual to publish his work. current us law is 70 years after the
 death of that individual is out of balance entirely. a more reasonable
 amount (for software) should be 10-15 years at most. maybe even less.

 what I'm trying to say here is that allowing free distribution of
 music online makes it easier for a young new artist (or software
 developer) to
  achieve his goals (becoming a known artist). I claim that we'll find
 our selves in a world where the independent creators, the garage bands
 and bedroom software developers, have _NOT_ gone the way of the dodo
 but rather flourish.


 
 I don't dispute any of that (well, except the last bit about the future
 of indies). The opportunities opened up by the internet are tremendous,
 and I've taken advantage of them myself to some extent. But you've
 missed the point entirely. I'm not saying we should disallow free
 distribution. That's rather silly. My argument is that *it's the
 creator's choice to sell his product or distribute it freely.*


 
 Again, this choice never existed but rather manufactured artificially by
 a few groups of interest.
 
 

 Just because you like free stuff doesn't mean I have to give my stuff
 away for free. Conversely, just because I like to sell my stuff doesn't
 mean you have to buy it. If we leave things at that, we're all happy
 campers. I'll sell my stuff to people who want to buy it and you can
 get your stuff from people who want to give it away for free. But when
 you start taking my stuff without paying for it, knowing that I'm
 selling it and don't want it given away freely, now you're stepping on
 my toes and infringing my rights.


 
 You do not have to publish your work. you can keep it for yourself.
 either you give to society or you don't. that's your choice.

 
 I can see you are passionate about this, but it reminds me very much of
 the debate over the GPL. This isn't a direct analogy, but the
 circumstances are similar. GPL supporters love to go on about how
 software should be free (as in 'libre'). Ultimately, they wind up
 reducing freedom by dictating that the source of any derived work be
 released under the same terms. True freedom would give developers more
 choice, like the BSD or MIT licenses do. In your arguments, you keep
 going on about how grand it would be for us to have free (as in
 'gratis', which is a different beast than 'libre' for sure) access to
 all of this stuff, but you would implicitly restrict the freedom (as in
 'libre') of the people who produce it by dictating how they should
 distribute it.


 
 I do not object to OSS that is sold for money (again with the Red hat
 example). there is no conflict here with this at all. another way to
 look at it is this:
 an MP3 file is just information and should be available online, at the
 same time there is nothing that prevents the musician to charge money
 for his performance. a singer "produces" music by singing (for example).
 he does not "produce" MP3 files.
 Why don't you pay for each song you here on the radio for example? when
 you go to a restaurant do you pay for the taste, the smell or the food
 itself?
 
 

 Speaking of the GPL, how do you feel about taking GPLed code and using
 it in closed-source, proprietary software that is then distributed to
 your customers freely or commercially (that is, ignoring the terms of
 the GPL altogether)? Is that just as acceptable to you as pirating the
 end product?


 
 I feel that the GPL is a necessary evil. It's a hack on top of a broken
 system. Ideally, there should be no need for it at all. Currently the
 GPL is the exception to the rule. the default is Closed-source. I'd want
 it to be the default while closed source would be the exception.
 to answer your question: yes it's wrong to subvert the GPL. The parallel
 you're trying to draw here however is not acceptable to me. these are
 two separate issues.


At this point I merely wish for you to define what information is to you. 
Information can refer to a number of things, but only one of them will 
you get me close to agreeing should be free of charge once released to 
the public and that is, "Knowledge about a topic." and any combination of 
bits does not fall into this.
Aug 17 2008
prev sibling parent "Jb" <jb nowhere.com> writes:
"Yigal Chripun" <yigal100 gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:g899ph$1gks$1 digitalmars.com...

 Mike Parker wrote:

 no one disputes that the artist/software developer should be able to
 earn a living.


 But you want to take the choice of how they do so out of their hands.


 Again, I do not take that choice. You claim that a software developer
 has the right to decide to treat his software as a product and sell
 "units" of it. I claim that such an option does not exist in the first
 place. software is information, either you share it or you keep it to
 yourself. beyond that there are copy-right laws that _give_ the author a
 limited time-span of exclusivity. the software developer doesn't have a
 right to exclusivity, he receives it from society for a limited time.
 that time span should represent a balance between the fact the published
 work is public domain and the need to make it worthwhile for an
 individual to publish his work. current us law is 70 years after the
 death of that individual is out of balance entirely.
 a more reasonable amount (for software) should be 10-15 years at most.
 maybe even less.


Again you are making an utterly pointless distinction. When we talk about 
what rights the author has of course we are talking about what rights our 
societys have decided they have. We are not saying the rights are bestowed 
on us by god.

Although FWIW i agree the length of copyright is far too long.

I think perhaps 20 years would be long enough.



 I don't dispute any of that (well, except the last bit about the future
 of indies). The opportunities opened up by the internet are tremendous,
 and I've taken advantage of them myself to some extent. But you've
 missed the point entirely. I'm not saying we should disallow free
 distribution. That's rather silly. My argument is that *it's the
 creator's choice to sell his product or distribute it freely.*


 Again, this choice never existed but rather manufactured artificially by
 a few groups of interest.


Again an utterly pointless thing to say.

You may as well say that a few hundred years ago we didnt have the right to 
a fair trials so we should not have them now.

It's utterly irelevant, we have that right today, so lets stick to talking 
about that.

(at least we do in civilized countries).



 Why don't you pay for each song you here on the radio for example?
 when you go to a restaurant do you pay for the taste, the smell or the
 food itself?


We do pay for songs that are played on the radio. In America there's ASCAP, 
and likewise in other countries there are organizations that are licenced by 
the government / rights owners, to collect royalties from the radio 
stations.

The radio stations typicaly pay these royalties by runing adverts.




 Speaking of the GPL, how do you feel about taking GPLed code and using
 it in closed-source, proprietary software that is then distributed to
 your customers freely or commercially (that is, ignoring the terms of
 the GPL altogether)? Is that just as acceptable to you as pirating the
 end product?


 I feel that the GPL is a necessary evil. It's a hack on top of a broken
 system. Ideally, there should be no need for it at all.
 Currently the GPL is the exception to the rule. the default is
 Closed-source. I'd want it to be the default while closed source would
 be the exception.
 to answer your question: yes it's wrong to subvert the GPL. The parallel
 you're trying to draw here however is not acceptable to me. these are
 two separate issues.


So GPL coders have the right to control what is done with their work but 
book authors / musicians dont?
Aug 17 2008
prev sibling parent "Jb" <jb nowhere.com> writes:
"Yigal Chripun" <yigal100 gmail.com> wrote in message
news:g88lc3$hgc$1 digitalmars.com...

 Mike Parker wrote:

 No, I'm not. My assertion is that the creator of a thing has a right to
 determine if and how that thing will be distributed to others. The rest
 of the world doesn't suddenly get to decide that they can distribute the
 thing freely just because they can. If I create a PC game, I dictate if
 it's freeware or commercial -- not the users.


 your train of thought here is going backwards. No one "suddenly" decided
 to take away the right to control distribution from the creator.
 That right never existed in the first place.


No rights exist a priori, and it adds nothing to this discusion to point 
that out.

We can only talk about rights in the context of what society decides we 
have, or what we think those rights should be.

So if society decided we have the right to control distribution of our work, 
then we do have those rights.



 At the end of the day, everyone has to make a living. Contrary to some
 assertions, I don't see that as an emotional argument. There's nothing
 illogical about the need to put food on the table. No one disputes the
 right of a carpenter to be paid for his work, nor for a doctor to be
 paid for his (though some would dispute the amount). Why, then, is it so
 difficult to accept that a software developer should be compensated for
 his work as well? Or a musician?


 no one disputes that the artist/software developer should be able to
 earn a living.


But you do seem to want to dictate how they do so. And you seem to want to 
dictate that they make their living in a way that best benefits you.



 what I'm trying to say here is that allowing free distribution of music
 online makes it easier for a young new artist (or software developer) to
 achieve his goals (becoming a known artist). I claim that we'll find
 our selves in a world where the independent creators, the garage bands
 and bedroom software developers, have _NOT_ gone the way of the dodo but
 rather flourish.


You obviously dont know many people who do this or else you'd know that the 
vast majority of bands / artist online, still SELL their music. They dont 
give it away for free, yes sometimes they give some tracks for free, or have 
listen online thingmebobs, for promotional reasons, but they dont give all 
their music away for free.

And in fact the real benefit of the internet for these people is free and 
cheap access to distribution / the public, not distribution of their work 
for free.

Small software developers in the pro audio industry have flourished because 
of easy entry to the market. They havn't flourished by giving their software 
away for free and hoping somone will drop a few pennies in the honesty box.



 Another example - current state of the legal system makes it harder for
 two teams of OSS to work together since they are afraid of legal
 consequences. (phobos and tango)
 in a more free legal system we wouldn't find ourselves waiting for more
 than a year since one author is afraid of taint and possibly getting
 sued in the future duo to it. the absurd is that both projects provide
 freely redistributable code and yet there are still fears of taint.


In a more free legal system there might never have been a phobos, or a 
digital mars. If Walter and the company he worked for couldnt have protected 
their investment its likely none of us would be here chatting now.

Capitalism, and property rights, are what has made western societys so 
prosperous, they encourage investment and enterprise.

Just because such laws / rights sometimes have negative effects doesnt mean 
they are all bad, and should be scrapped.



 If you ever watched "sliders" than you'd probably seen the episode where
 they slid to a world with 85% of the population having law degrees. in
 that world you had to provide a full health record and a signed and
 legally approved note that you wouldn't sue just to buy a hamburger.


Have you heard of the USSR? Of China? Of North Korea?

There's some real world examples, not sci fi jibberish, of why having weak
property rights is bad for enterprise and economy. Just look at how China
has flourished since it embraced capatalism.
Aug 17 2008
prev sibling parent reply Jesse Phillips <jessekphillips gmail.com> writes:
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 20:12:23 +0200, downs wrote:


 Mike Parker wrote:

 bobef wrote:

 Robert Fraser Wrote:

 Yigal Chripun Wrote:


 Robert Fraser wrote:
  > I've had very mixed feelings about all this. One one hand, the
 letter
 of the

 law may be questionably constitutional. But millions of dollars
 every day are
 lost because people (including myself occasionally...) steal
 copyrighted
 material. Honestly, I think there should be much stricter penalties
 for
 things like internet piracy, because it's simply so widespread and
 damaging.


 Of course you have the right to have your own opinion (that's also
 in the constitution) but all of the above is bullshit. (sorry for
 the language).

 stealing only applies to physical things like chairs and cars. that
 whole metaphor of information as physical entities is wrong. you
 sure can infringe someone's copyrights but you cannot steal anything
 since there's nothing to steal.


 Some philosopher said that all philosophical debates were inherently
 linguistic ones that stemmed from not having the words to represent
 the concepts being spoken about. We're using different definitions of
 "steal,"
 but the concept is clear -- it's taking something you don't have the
 right
 to have taken without paying for, and the debate is over whether you
 do or should have that right.


 This discussion is, of course, pointless but since I read it I may
 also comment :) I wan to support Yigal Chripun. So you say stealing is
 "taking something". But information (and software) is not something.
 It is not something you can take. I "pirate" something and I have my
 copy and you have yours. Nothing have been taken all are happy. This
 is actually a good thing. Too bad food doesn't work this way. The
 problem is greed. It has nothing to do with stealing.


 Yeah, all are happy. I'm sure the developer is ecstatic that you have
 no respect for him or the effort he put into developing his software.
 He'll be extremely glad to know that one more person thinks he doesn't
 deserve
  the same right to make a living that producers of physical goods
  enjoy.


 
 Bullshit. There is no such thing as "right to make a living".
 

 He'll be jumping for joy when enough people out there like you dash his
 dreams of working as a full-time developer and he has to go out and
 find another job to put food on the table. Oh, happy days!


 
 There are two kind of arguments: logical arguments and emotional
 arguments. Guess which yours is.
 
 

 Software *is* something. Just because it is infinitely copyable doesn't
 give you the right to copy it. No one has the right to take something
 someone else has created without the creator's permission.


 
 This is a common illusion. (I blame Disney).
 
 The right to exclusivity is granted to the creator, by the state, for a
 certain period of time. It does not exist "by default".
 

 I'm sure we
 can agree that if you want a chair I've crafted and I want to charge
 you for it, then I am well within my right to do so.


 
 Could we PLEASE keep the comparisons to physical goods out of it? NOT.
 THE SAME. THING.
 

 How is it that when my
 creation is infinitely copyable, I suddenly lose that right?


 
 Because you don't lose the original anymore. This has been said hundreds
 of times.
 

 I've heard
 this argument many, many, many times, but it still makes no sense to
 me. True, when you copy my infinitely copyable creation I'm not losing
 a physical object, but I *am* losing something -- compensation for the
 time and effort I put into it.


 
 Which, by the way, is not a right. Are people normally bound to buy your
 physical goods?
 

 It takes a heck of a lot longer to
 develop, test and debug a software application than it does to craft a
 chair.


 
 Maybe for cheap chairs.
 

 So why do you think developers shouldn't be afforded the same right as
 a craftsman? What gives you the right, in my stead, to decide if my
 product should be freely available?
 


 See above.
 

 And don't come at me with that 'information should be free' crap.
 Software is not information. It's a product.


 
 Software is purely information. "Software is a product" is a relatively
 novel idea that, I believe, was invented by our friends at MS (though I
 cannot point at a source for that claim).


Ok, let us leave out the chairs and discuss books (books of fiction). 
(Little tangent: I will agree there is no, "right to make a living." 
Hell, I can go as far as to say that there is no right to life, liberty, 
or pursuit of happiness. But then I would have to continue and say that 
no one has the right to remove someones life, liberty, or happiness. So 
really where did we go with this?)

Fiction books, I really would say that this is a collection of 
information (yes information is in it, but it is not solely information) 
and you probably disagree. Your claim is that if I can in some way 
(scanner/typing) get the information in this book onto in infinitely 
distributable medium I am allowed to distribute this as I see fit because 
I still have the original? And now back to chairs.

Since you can't seem to state the difference from selling physical items 
and phantom "infinitely copyable items," think I shall make an attempt 
and include why the purchaser of said product does not buy a right at any 
point in time to copy and distribute. As said, physical items are lost 
when distributed to another. However, if you had some way in which that 
chair could be copied, production line, I would assume that you would 
claim that I could only charge for the material cost that goes into it 
then? I obviously couldn't charge for labor because that would be like a 
Programmer charging for his software since only labor went into it. But 
then why would the original creator have a right to set a price for his 
chair, and probably include the labor in that price, shouldn't it just be 
for the materials that he use? But then again, why did the materials cost 
money? Wouldn't it have only been labor put in to get those materials, 
thus in reality everything is free? Yes there is the supply and demand 
thing, where the person laboring for materials will sell to the highest 
bidder. And this is where we have the difference; A laborer can change 
pricing by not producing an infinite quantity, bits can not be controlled 
(*cough* DRM *cough*).

This leads to the last point, why the end-user has no right to copy for 
distribution. The creator has, by having labored (which is not limited to 
physical), the right to define how copies for distribution are done. (I 
wish to emphasize _for_) The problem is that software and anything else 
digital, does not come with this natural property of limited quantity or 
required labor to copy.

I think I should also cover what I think the end-user does have the right 
to do once he buys the product. First off he is bound to the legal 
contract that he agrees to by using the product, why? Because he agreed 
to it by the fact that he is using the product (this my change depending 
on where you live, but local law should still rule). If not given some 
legal document, be it an OSS on or not, I see these rights for the end-
user. 

The user can not make a profit off of the purchased good until it is no 
longer being distributed by the creator, the creator is no longer making 
money. (If a company is the creator, which is likely, they would have 
some allotted time under 80yrs to control it).

The user has the right to resell, see first point, as long as he is 
giving up his right of use i.e. he is not keeping a copy for himself to 
use after the sale.

The user has control over his copy. Just like a chairs, guests can use it 
with permission from the copy's owner. And if he does not like his chair 
in the living room he can take it to the dinning room. Personal use 
copies are fine.

On the subject of users copying. The user can copy for distribution, the 
end result. If I have a reclining chair, I can take that idea and make my 
own reclining chair that works and looks exactly the same, as long as I 
don't use how the original was done (which just might make it hard to 
prove that it really was all my work).

To sum it up, the end-user does not have the right to decided for the 
creator, how copy for distribution is handled.
Aug 16 2008
parent reply Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com> writes:
My major issue with what you wrote is this:
60 years or so ago women didn't have the right to vote in the US. let's
go even before that to the time when black people in America were
considered property and didn't have any rights. In that period of time a
white person could claim that the law states that his black slave is his
property and it is entirely legal and moral to treat him as such. Today,
you'd of course disagree. Just as that man would claim according to the
law that black people where not really people and didn't have any
rights, you now claim that we are not entitled to the right of freedom
of information.
besides that, you talk in metaphors of infinitely copyable chairs (just
like in star trek..). I can compare that with the philosophical question
of "what if a tree falls in the forest and there's nobody there, does it
make a sound?" BUT, elementary physics tells us that the tree does make
a sound regardless. And I'll tell you: The chairs are *not* infinitely
copyable. What if I had three legs? well, I don't. So please stick to
the reality that chairs are not the same thing as software.

There are no inherit rights that allow the author to control
distribution. The way it actually works is this:
a) you came up with new exciting idea/poem/article/software/etc..
b) either you keep it to yourself or you publish it.
c) once it was published it is in the public domain. you cannot tell me:
I have an idea such as <some idea> BUT since I just told you my idea it
is mine alone and you cannot use it. If you do not want me to use your
idea just keep it for yourself and don't tell anyone about it. This is
what Coca-Cola does with its secret recipe. (it's secret!)

The above basic scheme was augmented by copyright/patent laws in the
following matter:
The state gives the creator a *limited* time-span of exclusivity from
the moment he told the world his idea or published his book/song/etc.
This is a trade-off designed to make it worthwhile for people to come up
with new ideas, invest their time in art, etc. I.e the public gives some
of its rights in order to gain more diversity of ideas and such.

Your entire analogy to chairs and such is plain false. This is not about
evil me trying to prevent the hard working artist/software developer
from earning his [well deserved] keep. With your method it is illogical
for a creator to give away his creation freely and yet get paid for his
hard work. That is, companies like Red hat simply cannot exist since you
can freely [and legally] download all their products on their website.
Yet, fact is that Red hat is a very financially successful company.

Another example would be music artists which distribute their music
freely online and yet do get paid for their hard work - the more people
listen to their music online the more will want to come to a live
performance [and pay for the ticket]. many artists already realized
this. They do not need the record companies to be successful. on the
contrary, the more they give for free, the more fans they have and the
more they earn.

When I wanted to buy a book about Java I went and bought "Thinking in
Java" which the author publishes a free online version of on his site.
I did download and read the online version and that convinced me it to
pay for the paper version. Not only that but I also recommend this book
and other books by the author, Bruce Eckel, to all my friends.

One last thing: history teaches us that once the freedom of information
is lost all the other rights will soon follow. happened numerous times
all over the world. we all know that when someone burns books the next
thing he'll burn will be people.

Jesse Phillips wrote:

 Ok, let us leave out the chairs and discuss books (books of fiction). 
 (Little tangent: I will agree there is no, "right to make a living." 
 Hell, I can go as far as to say that there is no right to life, liberty, 
 or pursuit of happiness. But then I would have to continue and say that 
 no one has the right to remove someones life, liberty, or happiness. So 
 really where did we go with this?)
 
 Fiction books, I really would say that this is a collection of 
 information (yes information is in it, but it is not solely information) 
 and you probably disagree. Your claim is that if I can in some way 
 (scanner/typing) get the information in this book onto in infinitely 
 distributable medium I am allowed to distribute this as I see fit because 
 I still have the original? And now back to chairs.
 
 Since you can't seem to state the difference from selling physical items 
 and phantom "infinitely copyable items," think I shall make an attempt 
 and include why the purchaser of said product does not buy a right at any 
 point in time to copy and distribute. As said, physical items are lost 
 when distributed to another. However, if you had some way in which that 
 chair could be copied, production line, I would assume that you would 
 claim that I could only charge for the material cost that goes into it 
 then? I obviously couldn't charge for labor because that would be like a 
 Programmer charging for his software since only labor went into it. But 
 then why would the original creator have a right to set a price for his 
 chair, and probably include the labor in that price, shouldn't it just be 
 for the materials that he use? But then again, why did the materials cost 
 money? Wouldn't it have only been labor put in to get those materials, 
 thus in reality everything is free? Yes there is the supply and demand 
 thing, where the person laboring for materials will sell to the highest 
 bidder. And this is where we have the difference; A laborer can change 
 pricing by not producing an infinite quantity, bits can not be controlled 
 (*cough* DRM *cough*).
 
 This leads to the last point, why the end-user has no right to copy for 
 distribution. The creator has, by having labored (which is not limited to 
 physical), the right to define how copies for distribution are done. (I 
 wish to emphasize _for_) The problem is that software and anything else 
 digital, does not come with this natural property of limited quantity or 
 required labor to copy.
 
 I think I should also cover what I think the end-user does have the right 
 to do once he buys the product. First off he is bound to the legal 
 contract that he agrees to by using the product, why? Because he agreed 
 to it by the fact that he is using the product (this my change depending 
 on where you live, but local law should still rule). If not given some 
 legal document, be it an OSS on or not, I see these rights for the end-
 user. 
 
 The user can not make a profit off of the purchased good until it is no 
 longer being distributed by the creator, the creator is no longer making 
 money. (If a company is the creator, which is likely, they would have 
 some allotted time under 80yrs to control it).
 
 The user has the right to resell, see first point, as long as he is 
 giving up his right of use i.e. he is not keeping a copy for himself to 
 use after the sale.
 
 The user has control over his copy. Just like a chairs, guests can use it 
 with permission from the copy's owner. And if he does not like his chair 
 in the living room he can take it to the dinning room. Personal use 
 copies are fine.
 
 On the subject of users copying. The user can copy for distribution, the 
 end result. If I have a reclining chair, I can take that idea and make my 
 own reclining chair that works and looks exactly the same, as long as I 
 don't use how the original was done (which just might make it hard to 
 prove that it really was all my work).
 
 To sum it up, the end-user does not have the right to decided for the 
 creator, how copy for distribution is handled.
Aug 16 2008
next sibling parent reply Jesse Phillips <jessekphillips gmail.com> writes:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 03:59:08 +0300, Yigal Chripun wrote:


 My major issue with what you wrote is this: 60 years or so ago women
 didn't have the right to vote in the US. let's go even before that to
 the time when black people in America were considered property and
 didn't have any rights. In that period of time a white person could
 claim that the law states that his black slave is his property and it is
 entirely legal and moral to treat him as such. Today, you'd of course
 disagree. Just as that man would claim according to the law that black
 people where not really people and didn't have any rights, you now claim
 that we are not entitled to the right of freedom of information.
 besides that, you talk in metaphors of infinitely copyable chairs (just
 like in star trek..). I can compare that with the philosophical question
 of "what if a tree falls in the forest and there's nobody there, does it
 make a sound?" BUT, elementary physics tells us that the tree does make
 a sound regardless. And I'll tell you: The chairs are *not* infinitely
 copyable. What if I had three legs? well, I don't. So please stick to
 the reality that chairs are not the same thing as software.
 


Sorry your beef with the past does not work. Back in those days blacks 
were property, sad but true. Yes there were people that didn't like it, 
and it was a horrible treatment of human life, yet there is a reason we 
do not charge people with a crime that was not a crime at the time. You 
must work to make change, and breaking law might be the only way to do 
it, but it is your choice and breaking the law (hence illegal).

My infinitely copyable chair example actually made reference to 
productions lines, which I do believe exist outside of Star Treck. I 
suppose I will have to state that yes, truly infinite copyable anything 
can not exist, you have to store you program somewhere. But for all 
intents and purposes products can be produced to a state that is 
equivalent to infinitely copyable, you only need enough to satisfy 
everyone that wants it.

Information, this is the god damn English language we are talking about, 
you need to go and define this thing that you wish to be throwing around 
as something we have a right to. And frankly, what we refer to for this 
right is completely different and so I am not going to define it myself 
because that is not the argument.


 There are no inherit rights that allow the author to control
 distribution. The way it actually works is this: a) you came up with new
 exciting idea/poem/article/software/etc.. b) either you keep it to
 yourself or you publish it. c) once it was published it is in the public
 domain. you cannot tell me: I have an idea such as <some idea> BUT since
 I just told you my idea it is mine alone and you cannot use it. If you
 do not want me to use your idea just keep it for yourself and don't tell
 anyone about it. This is what Coca-Cola does with its secret recipe.
 (it's secret!)


Yeah, they are natural rights given by nature. A farmer produces corn, 
and low and behold he has control over distribution of it. Why, he 
labored over it and got a product. If someone else is successful in doing 
the same, great but in either case this creator has the right given by 
the fact that to produce corn in such quantities takes work and not 
everyone is going to stumble across the free supplies they need. Which is 
where the idea of inherent rights to distribution come from. If a laborer 
of physical goods gets this right without legal statement, a laborer of 
something that does not have this innate property should have it extended 
to him.


 
 The above basic scheme was augmented by copyright/patent laws in the
 following matter:
 The state gives the creator a *limited* time-span of exclusivity from
 the moment he told the world his idea or published his book/song/etc.
 This is a trade-off designed to make it worthwhile for people to come up
 with new ideas, invest their time in art, etc. I.e the public gives some
 of its rights in order to gain more diversity of ideas and such.


Do you see a problem with such an idea? If I work at something that 
others enjoy why not have exclusive rights to it? Yes people are willing 
to create things for free, but that was their choice and they were the 
ones that put work into it.


 
 Your entire analogy to chairs and such is plain false. This is not about
 evil me trying to prevent the hard working artist/software developer
 from earning his [well deserved] keep. With your method it is illogical
 for a creator to give away his creation freely and yet get paid for his
 hard work. That is, companies like Red hat simply cannot exist since you
 can freely [and legally] download all their products on their website.
 Yet, fact is that Red hat is a very financially successful company.


First off, not RedHats choice anyway, they built on something that was 
already being given out for free. Secondly, how is it logical to give 
something out for free and then be paid for it? Isn't that like selling 
it (this is assuming you get paid for every one given out for free).

The main fallacy with your argument is saying that people can make money 
even if the are not charging for it. So what? I'm not arguing here what 
the best business model is to make the most money. There is lots of 
great, free software out there where people make money. What does that 
have to do with anything? If you want to convince people to make their 
stuff free, then great, but it has nothing to do with are argument.


 
 Another example would be music artists which distribute their music
 freely online and yet do get paid for their hard work - the more people
 listen to their music online the more will want to come to a live
 performance [and pay for the ticket]. many artists already realized
 this. They do not need the record companies to be successful. on the
 contrary, the more they give for free, the more fans they have and the
 more they earn.


See above. I don't care what gets people the most money. I care about 
these person's right to decide how the do their product distribution.


 
 When I wanted to buy a book about Java I went and bought "Thinking in
 Java" which the author publishes a free online version of on his site. I
 did download and read the online version and that convinced me it to pay
 for the paper version. Not only that but I also recommend this book and
 other books by the author, Bruce Eckel, to all my friends.


See above. Great your one of the nice peoples that pays for things they 
get for free.


 
 One last thing: history teaches us that once the freedom of information
 is lost all the other rights will soon follow. happened numerous times
 all over the world. we all know that when someone burns books the next
 thing he'll burn will be people.


See third paragraph. Define information, then correlate to how the loss 
of different types of information (yes there is more than one) lead to 
loss of other rights. I would agree with you on some, but not all. And 
maybe this can be the topic of the next postings.


 
 Jesse Phillips wrote:

 Ok, let us leave out the chairs and discuss books (books of fiction).
 (Little tangent: I will agree there is no, "right to make a living."
 Hell, I can go as far as to say that there is no right to life,
 liberty, or pursuit of happiness. But then I would have to continue and
 say that no one has the right to remove someones life, liberty, or
 happiness. So really where did we go with this?)
 
 Fiction books, I really would say that this is a collection of
 information (yes information is in it, but it is not solely
 information) and you probably disagree. Your claim is that if I can in
 some way (scanner/typing) get the information in this book onto in
 infinitely distributable medium I am allowed to distribute this as I
 see fit because I still have the original? And now back to chairs.
 
 Since you can't seem to state the difference from selling physical
 items and phantom "infinitely copyable items," think I shall make an
 attempt and include why the purchaser of said product does not buy a
 right at any point in time to copy and distribute. As said, physical
 items are lost when distributed to another. However, if you had some
 way in which that chair could be copied, production line, I would
 assume that you would claim that I could only charge for the material
 cost that goes into it then? I obviously couldn't charge for labor
 because that would be like a Programmer charging for his software since
 only labor went into it. But then why would the original creator have a
 right to set a price for his chair, and probably include the labor in
 that price, shouldn't it just be for the materials that he use? But
 then again, why did the materials cost money? Wouldn't it have only
 been labor put in to get those materials, thus in reality everything is
 free? Yes there is the supply and demand thing, where the person
 laboring for materials will sell to the highest bidder. And this is
 where we have the difference; A laborer can change pricing by not
 producing an infinite quantity, bits can not be controlled (*cough* DRM
 *cough*).
 
 This leads to the last point, why the end-user has no right to copy for
 distribution. The creator has, by having labored (which is not limited
 to physical), the right to define how copies for distribution are done.
 (I wish to emphasize _for_) The problem is that software and anything
 else digital, does not come with this natural property of limited
 quantity or required labor to copy.
 
 I think I should also cover what I think the end-user does have the
 right to do once he buys the product. First off he is bound to the
 legal contract that he agrees to by using the product, why? Because he
 agreed to it by the fact that he is using the product (this my change
 depending on where you live, but local law should still rule). If not
 given some legal document, be it an OSS on or not, I see these rights
 for the end- user.
 
 The user can not make a profit off of the purchased good until it is no
 longer being distributed by the creator, the creator is no longer
 making money. (If a company is the creator, which is likely, they would
 have some allotted time under 80yrs to control it).
 
 The user has the right to resell, see first point, as long as he is
 giving up his right of use i.e. he is not keeping a copy for himself to
 use after the sale.
 
 The user has control over his copy. Just like a chairs, guests can use
 it with permission from the copy's owner. And if he does not like his
 chair in the living room he can take it to the dinning room. Personal
 use copies are fine.
 
 On the subject of users copying. The user can copy for distribution,
 the end result. If I have a reclining chair, I can take that idea and
 make my own reclining chair that works and looks exactly the same, as
 long as I don't use how the original was done (which just might make it
 hard to prove that it really was all my work).
 
 To sum it up, the end-user does not have the right to decided for the
 creator, how copy for distribution is handled.
Aug 16 2008
parent reply Christopher Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> writes:
Jesse Phillips wrote:

 On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 03:59:08 +0300, Yigal Chripun wrote:

 There are no inherit rights that allow the author to control
 distribution. The way it actually works is this: a) you came up with new
 exciting idea/poem/article/software/etc.. b) either you keep it to
 yourself or you publish it. c) once it was published it is in the public
 domain. you cannot tell me: I have an idea such as <some idea> BUT since
 I just told you my idea it is mine alone and you cannot use it. If you
 do not want me to use your idea just keep it for yourself and don't tell
 anyone about it. This is what Coca-Cola does with its secret recipe.
 (it's secret!)


 
 Yeah, they are natural rights given by nature. A farmer produces corn, 
 and low and behold he has control over distribution of it.


Unless someone else decides to take away that corn by force. Which is my 
right, given by nature, if I can pull it off.

The notion of property requires some enforcing mechanism, whether it be 
brute force or legal convention (and the law is backed up by brute 
force). But physical property doesn't require any great amount of 
communication; I live in a place, and I actively prevent other people 
from living there.

Intellectual property is a much more recent invention. For example, 
William Shakespeare didn't publish any of his plays. One of the few 
early English playwrights to publish their own works, Ben Johnson, was 
ridiculed for having done so -- it was polite and properly modest to 
allow others to publish your works, with no compensation to you.

Intellectual property began, I believe, with Renaissance monarchs 
promoting particular manufacturers by giving them monopolies. If an 
enterprising entrepreneur created a new product, the rights to 
manufacture that might be restricted to one individual in the king's 
favor. This was not any notion of fairness or protection for inventors; 
it was simply nepotism.

In recent times, intellectual property has been extended to cover nearly 
everything you can think of, and it's transformed into a system intended 
to protect content creators. This is progress. One can argue that 
insufficient thought has been given to issues such as remixing 
copyrighted works, or orphaned copyrights, or patents intended only to 
generate lawsuits. (I would.)


(Also, it's "lo and behold", not "low and behold".)
Aug 17 2008
parent reply Jesse Phillips <jessekphillips gmail.com> writes:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 09:47:46 -0400, Christopher Wright wrote:


 Jesse Phillips wrote:

 On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 03:59:08 +0300, Yigal Chripun wrote:

 There are no inherit rights that allow the author to control
 distribution. The way it actually works is this: a) you came up with
 new exciting idea/poem/article/software/etc.. b) either you keep it to
 yourself or you publish it. c) once it was published it is in the
 public domain. you cannot tell me: I have an idea such as <some idea>
 BUT since I just told you my idea it is mine alone and you cannot use
 it. If you do not want me to use your idea just keep it for yourself
 and don't tell anyone about it. This is what Coca-Cola does with its
 secret recipe. (it's secret!)


 
 Yeah, they are natural rights given by nature. A farmer produces corn,
 and low and behold he has control over distribution of it.


 
 Unless someone else decides to take away that corn by force. Which is my
 right, given by nature, if I can pull it off.


Ok, so you claim that stealing is your right if you can get away with it. 
This indicates we should start there with are argument.


 
 The notion of property requires some enforcing mechanism, whether it be
 brute force or legal convention (and the law is backed up by brute
 force). But physical property doesn't require any great amount of
 communication; I live in a place, and I actively prevent other people
 from living there.


Ok, so as long as you have some sort of force to use, you can claim 
anything to be yours.


 
 Intellectual property is a much more recent invention. For example,
 William Shakespeare didn't publish any of his plays. One of the few
 early English playwrights to publish their own works, Ben Johnson, was
 ridiculed for having done so -- it was polite and properly modest to
 allow others to publish your works, with no compensation to you.
 


Who cares if it is recent or not. The US Constitution is a recent 
invention, and yet us Americans don't criticize it for that. Actually 
some may claim it is too old.


 Intellectual property began, I believe, with Renaissance monarchs
 promoting particular manufacturers by giving them monopolies. If an
 enterprising entrepreneur created a new product, the rights to
 manufacture that might be restricted to one individual in the king's
 favor. This was not any notion of fairness or protection for inventors;
 it was simply nepotism.


See above.


 
 In recent times, intellectual property has been extended to cover nearly
 everything you can think of, and it's transformed into a system intended
 to protect content creators. This is progress. One can argue that
 insufficient thought has been given to issues such as remixing
 copyrighted works, or orphaned copyrights, or patents intended only to
 generate lawsuits. (I would.)


I'm not trying to defend how the legal system is set up to handle the 
issue. Many will agree the legal system is crap.


 
 
 (Also, it's "lo and behold", not "low and behold".)


Thank you.
Aug 17 2008
parent reply Christopher Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> writes:
Jesse Phillips wrote:

 On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 09:47:46 -0400, Christopher Wright wrote:
 

 Jesse Phillips wrote:

 On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 03:59:08 +0300, Yigal Chripun wrote:

 There are no inherit rights that allow the author to control
 distribution. The way it actually works is this: a) you came up with
 new exciting idea/poem/article/software/etc.. b) either you keep it to
 yourself or you publish it. c) once it was published it is in the
 public domain. you cannot tell me: I have an idea such as <some idea>
 BUT since I just told you my idea it is mine alone and you cannot use
 it. If you do not want me to use your idea just keep it for yourself
 and don't tell anyone about it. This is what Coca-Cola does with its
 secret recipe. (it's secret!)


 Yeah, they are natural rights given by nature. A farmer produces corn,
 and low and behold he has control over distribution of it.


 Unless someone else decides to take away that corn by force. Which is my
 right, given by nature, if I can pull it off.


 
 Ok, so you claim that stealing is your right if you can get away with it. 
 This indicates we should start there with are argument.


That is my natural right, since it is my ability. I do not claim that it 
is right or good or just; society defines those, and society is not the 
source of natural rights.

But it's pointless to talk about natural rights. You can talk about 
societal rights or, if you're so inclined, God-given rights.


 The notion of property requires some enforcing mechanism, whether it be
 brute force or legal convention (and the law is backed up by brute
 force). But physical property doesn't require any great amount of
 communication; I live in a place, and I actively prevent other people
 from living there.


 
 Ok, so as long as you have some sort of force to use, you can claim 
 anything to be yours.


Well, yes. If fifty armed men showed up at your door and said that all 
your pillow cases were now theirs, you wouldn't be inclined to argue.


 Intellectual property is a much more recent invention. For example,
 William Shakespeare didn't publish any of his plays. One of the few
 early English playwrights to publish their own works, Ben Johnson, was
 ridiculed for having done so -- it was polite and properly modest to
 allow others to publish your works, with no compensation to you.


 
 Who cares if it is recent or not. The US Constitution is a recent 
 invention, and yet us Americans don't criticize it for that. Actually 
 some may claim it is too old.


Being a recent invention, intellectual property protection is clearly 
not a basic right of humans. Not all societies will require it.


 I'm not trying to defend how the legal system is set up to handle the 
 issue. Many will agree the legal system is crap.


Because intellectual property is a recent invention, its implementations 
may not be optimal. Unfortunately, a well-defined legal system predates 
intellectual property, so it's harder to try out different mechanisms 
for IP protection.
Aug 17 2008
parent Jesse Phillips <jessekphillips gmail.com> writes:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 15:44:57 -0400, Christopher Wright wrote:


 Jesse Phillips wrote:

 On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 09:47:46 -0400, Christopher Wright wrote:
 

 Jesse Phillips wrote:

 On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 03:59:08 +0300, Yigal Chripun wrote:

 There are no inherit rights that allow the author to control
 distribution. The way it actually works is this: a) you came up with
 new exciting idea/poem/article/software/etc.. b) either you keep it
 to yourself or you publish it. c) once it was published it is in the
 public domain. you cannot tell me: I have an idea such as <some
 idea> BUT since I just told you my idea it is mine alone and you
 cannot use it. If you do not want me to use your idea just keep it
 for yourself and don't tell anyone about it. This is what Coca-Cola
 does with its secret recipe. (it's secret!)


 Yeah, they are natural rights given by nature. A farmer produces
 corn, and low and behold he has control over distribution of it.


 Unless someone else decides to take away that corn by force. Which is
 my right, given by nature, if I can pull it off.


 
 Ok, so you claim that stealing is your right if you can get away with
 it. This indicates we should start there with are argument.


 
 That is my natural right, since it is my ability. I do not claim that it
 is right or good or just; society defines those, and society is not the
 source of natural rights.
 
 But it's pointless to talk about natural rights. You can talk about
 societal rights or, if you're so inclined, God-given rights.
 

 The notion of property requires some enforcing mechanism, whether it
 be brute force or legal convention (and the law is backed up by brute
 force). But physical property doesn't require any great amount of
 communication; I live in a place, and I actively prevent other people
 from living there.


 
 Ok, so as long as you have some sort of force to use, you can claim
 anything to be yours.


 
 Well, yes. If fifty armed men showed up at your door and said that all
 your pillow cases were now theirs, you wouldn't be inclined to argue.
 

 Intellectual property is a much more recent invention. For example,
 William Shakespeare didn't publish any of his plays. One of the few
 early English playwrights to publish their own works, Ben Johnson, was
 ridiculed for having done so -- it was polite and properly modest to
 allow others to publish your works, with no compensation to you.


 Who cares if it is recent or not. The US Constitution is a recent
 invention, and yet us Americans don't criticize it for that. Actually
 some may claim it is too old.


 
 Being a recent invention, intellectual property protection is clearly
 not a basic right of humans. Not all societies will require it.
 

 I'm not trying to defend how the legal system is set up to handle the
 issue. Many will agree the legal system is crap.


 
 Because intellectual property is a recent invention, its implementations
 may not be optimal. Unfortunately, a well-defined legal system predates
 intellectual property, so it's harder to try out different mechanisms
 for IP protection.


I will move this to the "does IP exist" thread.
Aug 17 2008
prev sibling parent reply "Jb" <jb nowhere.com> writes:
"Yigal Chripun" <yigal100 gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:g87t4r$1uq6$1 digitalmars.com...

 My major issue with what you wrote is this:
 60 years or so ago women didn't have the right to vote in the US. let's
 go even before that to the time when black people in America were
 considered property and didn't have any rights. In that period of time a
 white person could claim that the law states that his black slave is his
 property and it is entirely legal and moral to treat him as such. Today,
 you'd of course disagree. Just as that man would claim according to the
 law that black people where not really people and didn't have any
 rights, you now claim that we are not entitled to the right of freedom
 of information.


One of the consequences of the abolition of slavery was that those people 
now had the right to paid for their work, whereas previously they didnt.

So your crass analogy actualy works against you.



 besides that, you talk in metaphors of infinitely copyable chairs (just
 like in star trek..). I can compare that with the philosophical question
 of "what if a tree falls in the forest and there's nobody there, does it
 make a sound?" BUT, elementary physics tells us that the tree does make
 a sound regardless. And I'll tell you: The chairs are *not* infinitely
 copyable. What if I had three legs? well, I don't. So please stick to
 the reality that chairs are not the same thing as software.


I think he was making the point that when you buy a physical product you are 
not just paying for materials, but also for the labour, whether production 
line labour or the labour in development and design.

If you take the actual cost of materials out of the analogy with a chair you 
are left with a similar situation we have with software, where the cost of 
the product is almost all labour costs.



 There are no inherit rights that allow the author to control
 distribution. The way it actually works is this:


There are no inherent rights to anything in this world. Human rights, or 
copyrights, or civil rights, all of these are human creations.

So when we talk about such rights, it only makes sense to do so in that 
context. What rights has our society / social group decided we have.



 a) you came up with new exciting idea/poem/article/software/etc..
 b) either you keep it to yourself or you publish it.
 c) once it was published it is in the public domain. you cannot tell me:
 I have an idea such as <some idea> BUT since I just told you my idea it
 is mine alone and you cannot use it. If you do not want me to use your
 idea just keep it for yourself and don't tell anyone about it. This is
 what Coca-Cola does with its secret recipe. (it's secret!)


You dont copyright ideas, you patent ideas. Copyright is for protecting 
works, artistic or otherwise, not for protecting ideas.

If you read a book for example you are free to tell people about the ideas 
in the book. Nobody is trying to stop you doing that.

But you are not usualy free to make a copy of the book and give that to 
them.



 Your entire analogy to chairs and such is plain false. This is not about
 evil me trying to prevent the hard working artist/software developer
 from earning his [well deserved] keep. With your method it is illogical
 for a creator to give away his creation freely and yet get paid for his
 hard work. That is, companies like Red hat simply cannot exist since you
 can freely [and legally] download all their products on their website.
 Yet, fact is that Red hat is a very financially successful company.


Straw man. He never said you cant do whatever business model you want, he 
simply said the "software is a product" business model is a valid one.

That some companies do well with "software as a service" doesnt mean we 
should force all companies to be like that. Or that we should rigidly 
confine our idea of what software is in such a way.



 Another example would be music artists which distribute their music
 freely online and yet do get paid for their hard work - the more people
 listen to their music online the more will want to come to a live
 performance [and pay for the ticket]. many artists already realized
 this. They do not need the record companies to be successful. on the
 contrary, the more they give for free, the more fans they have and the
 more they earn.


From what I've read the majority of bands / artists who are actualy doing 
well with such models are ones who have already climbed up music industry 
ladder and were already world famous before going independant..



 When I wanted to buy a book about Java I went and bought "Thinking in
 Java" which the author publishes a free online version of on his site.
 I did download and read the online version and that convinced me it to
 pay for the paper version. Not only that but I also recommend this book
 and other books by the author, Bruce Eckel, to all my friends.


If that's his choice of business model good for him. If he makes a living 
that way great.

But if it isnt he shouldnt be forced to adopt that business model by people 
like you.

Dont get me wrong, i like such ways of doing things, i like free software, 
and such try before buy busniess models. But i dont think I have a right to 
it. I dont have the right to force you to do business in a way that suits 
me.



 One last thing: history teaches us that once the freedom of information
 is lost all the other rights will soon follow. happened numerous times
 all over the world. we all know that when someone burns books the next
 thing he'll burn will be people.


You're very confused. Freedom of information is about cencorship, government 
control of information, and about such information being *freely 
accessible*.

It's not about information being free as in free beer.

And again i find your analogy with book burning somewhat crass. The 
situation we are talking about here is nothing like that. No-one is trying 
to erase certain ideas / artistic works from history. We are in fact trying 
to do the exact oposite. We are trying to create an enviroment where ideas 
and artist works flourish.
Aug 16 2008
parent reply "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 04:12:37AM +0100, Jb wrote:

 No-one is trying 
 to erase certain ideas / artistic works from history. We are in fact trying 
 to do the exact oposite. We are trying to create an enviroment where ideas 
 and artist works flourish.


Then why is this debate about rights? Rights are irrelevant - what
matters is the results.

If your goal is to create an environment where ideas and art flourish,
great. That's a good goal, and that is where your defence should be
focused.

Forget all this repetitive talk about rights, and talk about how the
law helps or doesn't help achieve this goal (or whatever other goal you
want to set).

Copyright law might be a valid way to achieve this goal. It might not
be. There might be completely better ways (something I'm convinced of).


Setting a real world goal for the debate lets both sides create an
objective test case for their arguments, which would let it finally come
to an adequate conclusion.

-- 
Adam D. Ruppe
http://arsdnet.net
Aug 16 2008
next sibling parent reply Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com> writes:
Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 04:12:37AM +0100, Jb wrote:

 No-one is trying 
 to erase certain ideas / artistic works from history. We are in fact trying 
 to do the exact oposite. We are trying to create an enviroment where ideas 
 and artist works flourish.


 
 Then why is this debate about rights? Rights are irrelevant - what
 matters is the results.
 
 If your goal is to create an environment where ideas and art flourish,
 great. That's a good goal, and that is where your defence should be
 focused.
 
 Forget all this repetitive talk about rights, and talk about how the
 law helps or doesn't help achieve this goal (or whatever other goal you
 want to set).
 
 Copyright law might be a valid way to achieve this goal. It might not
 be. There might be completely better ways (something I'm convinced of).
 
 
 Setting a real world goal for the debate lets both sides create an
 objective test case for their arguments, which would let it finally come
 to an adequate conclusion.
 


I agree with you.
if we talk about results: allowing free redistribution of information
allows young aspiring artists to go straight to the public and spread
the word about their art.
this also works for software developers with the same model. You do not
need to convince someone with lots of money to invest in you in order to
create your software. you do not need to start your own company.
Many OSS developers done just that.
i.e Linus published his kernel online, it got successful and now he's
being paid to develop his pet project. same goes for the core developers
of all OSS. the problem is greed. people think they can go write a
text-editor, patent the sh*t out of it and become billionaires. also on
the way screwing anyone else that also wanted to produce a text editor.
so yes, with OSS you won't become the next bill gates with your
software, but, we'll have more diversity of software and more people
could make a descent living by being software developers.

besides, why does it make sense that we should have a small bunch of
people controlling all software and getting all the benefits?
Aug 17 2008
parent Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:
Yigal Chripun wrote:

 Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 04:12:37AM +0100, Jb wrote:

 No-one is trying 
 to erase certain ideas / artistic works from history. We are in fact trying 
 to do the exact oposite. We are trying to create an enviroment where ideas 
 and artist works flourish.


 Then why is this debate about rights? Rights are irrelevant - what
 matters is the results.

 If your goal is to create an environment where ideas and art flourish,
 great. That's a good goal, and that is where your defence should be
 focused.

 Forget all this repetitive talk about rights, and talk about how the
 law helps or doesn't help achieve this goal (or whatever other goal you
 want to set).

 Copyright law might be a valid way to achieve this goal. It might not
 be. There might be completely better ways (something I'm convinced of).


 Setting a real world goal for the debate lets both sides create an
 objective test case for their arguments, which would let it finally come
 to an adequate conclusion.


 
 I agree with you.
 if we talk about results: allowing free redistribution of information
 allows young aspiring artists to go straight to the public and spread
 the word about their art.


This has been mentioned before, but there's a difference between liberty 
and gratuity. It's unfortunate that we use the one word, freedom, to 
represent both in English.


 this also works for software developers with the same model. You do not
 need to convince someone with lots of money to invest in you in order to
 create your software. you do not need to start your own company.
 Many OSS developers done just that.
 i.e Linus published his kernel online, it got successful and now he's
 being paid to develop his pet project. same goes for the core developers
 of all OSS. the problem is greed. people think they can go write a
 text-editor, patent the sh*t out of it and become billionaires. also on
 the way screwing anyone else that also wanted to produce a text editor.
 so yes, with OSS you won't become the next bill gates with your
 software, but, we'll have more diversity of software and more people
 could make a descent living by being software developers.
 
 besides, why does it make sense that we should have a small bunch of
 people controlling all software and getting all the benefits?


You're taking this argument well beyond the boundaries and entering the 
territory of ideology. No one denies that Linus was free to distribute 
Linux without charge. No one in these discussions here have advocated 
that people be prevented from doing so. And I've yet to see anyone lend 
support to the idea that all software should be controlled by a few people.

What people here have argued is that Linus had the /choice/ to release 
Linux freely. That's freedom (liberty). It was *his* choice. Not yours, 
not mine. He could just as easily have chosen to charge you an arm and a 
leg for it. We can all be happy that he didn't. But if you allow anyone 
and everyone to freely (gratis) distribute the work of others without 
permission, you are then impugning the freedom (liberty) of the 
creators. Is that what you really want?
Aug 17 2008
prev sibling parent reply "Jb" <jb nowhere.com> writes:
"Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.7.1218945114.19733.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...

 On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 04:12:37AM +0100, Jb wrote:

 No-one is trying
 to erase certain ideas / artistic works from history. We are in fact
 trying
 to do the exact oposite. We are trying to create an enviroment where
 ideas
 and artist works flourish.


 Then why is this debate about rights? Rights are irrelevant - what
 matters is the results.


Because rights are what lead us to those results. Human rights are what make
society more fair, compasionate, and inclusive. For example.



 If your goal is to create an environment where ideas and art flourish,
 great. That's a good goal, and that is where your defence should be
 focused.


That's pretty much where my defense has been focused.



 Forget all this repetitive talk about rights, and talk about how the
 law helps or doesn't help achieve this goal (or whatever other goal you
 want to set).


It is the law that decides what rights we have. You cannot talk about this
without talking about rights.



 Copyright law might be a valid way to achieve this goal. It might not
 be. There might be completely better ways (something I'm convinced of).


I think the mistake you and Yigal are making is assuming that it should all 
be done in the same way. Red Hat does this or that why cant everyone else? 
Well the system should allow people as much freedom as possible to work on 
whichever business model best suits their enterprise.

Which is pretty much what we have today. By allowing authors to control 
distribution they can control the business model. They can give it away if 
they like. They can go for a service model, and honesty box model, or a 
product model.

But if you take away that right the range of options open to them is far 
smaller.

And you would see far less enterprise because of it.
Aug 17 2008
parent reply "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 06:58:13PM +0100, Jb wrote:

 I think the mistake you and Yigal are making is assuming that it should all 
 be done in the same way.


My own position is may be a little weird. As far as rights to information
goes, there are a two:

1) You cannot force someone to divulge anything.

Thus, he is free to charge someone for a piece of information if he wants.

2) You cannot force someone /not/ to divulge something.

Thus, once you tell someone something, he is free to resell it if he wants.

In short, I'm saying a person can choose to tell or not tell whatever he
wants.




face undesirable consequences.

Use of force to modify people's behaviour needs to be justified. This
is where the disagreement really lies, and as you read on, you'll see that
you and I don't really disagree as much here as it might look at first glance :)



 Well the system should allow people as much freedom as possible to work on 
 whichever business model best suits their enterprise.


If my business model was to murder all my competitors, you surely wouldn't
allow that.

Clearly, people aren't free to pick which ever business model best suits
them - there are restrictions on what they can do, especially when it comes
to using force on other people.

As I said above, copyright law is using force on other people to modify
their behaviour. It seems like it, by default, shouldn't be permitted.

Unlike most human rights which prevent you from using force on people
except in extreme circumstances (people have a right to life, thus murder
is wrong, etc.), copyright permits you to use force on people. This is
backward. The burden of proof is on the pro-copyright side.


 But if you take away that right the range of options open to them is far 
 smaller.
 
 And you would see far less enterprise because of it.


They don't have the option to send armed thugs to their competitor's
office to prevent him from manufacturing other objects, and that doesn't
hurt business - quite the opposite, it helps business.

Copyright might not be sending armed thugs, but it is the same idea: you
are forcing someone else out in favor of yourself.

I would argue that in an ideal world, there would be no copyright, and
this is something that would allow art to flourish.


Consider a world without copyright for a moment. Say you find a software
library on the Internet that is perfect for your needs and would shave
weeks off your development time.

With copyright, you have to adhere to its license, which wastes your time.
Without copyright, you just take it and use it.

Your project is now completed weeks ahead of schedule and is of higher
quality than if you had to reimplement that library yourself.

This lets you move on to another project more quickly. The world gets
more and better creations since you weren't restricted in what you could
do in creating it.

Later on, someone could do the same to your project, using it or pieces of
it to shave time off his own project, adding more and more quantity and
quality of creations to the world.

This would be ideal. Art would flourish.


But the real world isn't ideal as it is right now. This is where you might
be able to justify a copyright law. In the real world, if you devote
several months to creating something, you have bills that need to be
paid during those months.

You have two options:
1) Work another job to pay the bills. This eats into the time you would
otherwise spend on the creation of your project, meaning you can't create
as much nor as high quality as you could by devoting more time to it.

Or 2) Make some money off that project in some way. This lets you devote
all your time to the creation of the art while still paying the bills.


There are a few ways to accomplish that. One is to sell originals of the
work to people later. Musicians can do this by selling tickets to live
performances. Painters can do this by selling their painting.

Software developers can't do this directly. The best hope they have is
selling support, which IMO isn't a very attractive option...

Another is to work on commission. You create a custom work for someone
who pays you ahead of time to create something just for him. This
is actually how I make money off my software right now in the real world;
I write extremely boring, but highly specialized applications to specific
customers. They pay me for a custom fitted program, which I cannot control
at all when it is done (the copyright is assigned to the customer.)

That is how artists worked through most of history. It's a fairly good model
for various kinds of artists, including software developers. Even without
copyright, people will probably still want custom-tailored solutions to
their own problems and will be willing to pay for it.


Another way to pay the bills while being an artist is to be sponsored by
someone. This is comparatively rare, so it isn't something on which to bet
the farm.


Finally, you have the copyright option: using force to shape the market
in such a way where it is profitable to you. If none of the above options
are workable, this lets the artist still pay the bills while working on
his art full-time. Thus, most everyone is happy: the art is created, letting
people have it and the artist doesn't have to starve to death.



That result is the only thing that justifies copyright. It isn't about
the rights of the creator - he doesn't have the right to use force on people
under normal circumstances, so that argument is right out. It is about
the end result.

In an ideal world, copyright would be an evil. It would do only harm and
no good. (As you can probably tell, the definition of the ideal world
I'm using here is simply one where bills /don't/ have to be paid. Other
than that difference, all things are equal with the real world. I strongly
believe that the real world could be adjusted to fit this definition in the
near future, if only we had the political will to make some changes.)

In the ideal world, the only restriction I'd place on 'intellectual property'
is basically what several of the phobos source licenses say: you may not
misrepresent the source of the work. Otherwise, do whatever you want with it.


In the real world, it serves a useful purpose - letting artists work full
time without selling originals or working on commission, permitting things
to be created that otherwise would be neglected in favor of the artist paying
his bills. Thus it is allowed to exist.


That's it.

-- 
Adam D. Ruppe
http://arsdnet.net
Aug 17 2008
next sibling parent reply "Jb" <jb nowhere.com> writes:
"Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.8.1219006500.19733.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...


 In the real world, it serves a useful purpose - letting artists work full
 time without selling originals or working on commission, permitting things
 to be created that otherwise would be neglected in favor of the artist 
 paying
 his bills. Thus it is allowed to exist.


I wish you'd put that paragraph first and then I wouldnt have spent 30 
minutes responding to all your utopian copyright free wet dreams.

;-)

I do think you overstate what copyright actualy does. It doesnt prevent 
sharing of ideas and information. It just prevent copying of (usualy) 
artistic works.

You can read a book and tell people about what is in the book. Explain the 
ideas. Or tell them about your experiences of a film you saw.

You can even buy it on DVD and have them round your house to watch it.

All it actualy does is stop you making a copy and giving it to them.




Consider a world without copyright for a moment. Say you find a software
library on the Internet that is perfect for your needs and would shave
weeks off your development time.

With copyright, you have to adhere to its license, which wastes your time.
Without copyright, you just take it and use it.


Actualy without copyright the chances of finding that library would be 
greatly diminished. For a start if people want to they can already create 
software and release with no restrictions. This option already exists.

All that would happen if you killed copyright is the people who write and 
release software in order to make a living would likely go out of business 
and end up doing somthing else.

For a start nobody would be obliged to pay for their work. Second anyone 
could copy it and put it up on their website, and sell it as if it were 
there own.

You end up in a situation where those people with the most ruthless business 
practices are the ones who will do most well.

So the idea that art / software production would flourish without copyright 
is plain false, it's so false it's almost absurd.
Aug 17 2008
parent reply "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 12:23:44AM +0100, Jb wrote:

 I wish you'd put that paragraph first and then I wouldnt have spent 30 
 minutes responding to all your utopian copyright free wet dreams.
 
 ;-)


Heh, yes, I do tend to ramble. (One reason why I generally lurk rather
than post...)


 
 I do think you overstate what copyright actualy does. It doesnt prevent 
 sharing of ideas and information. It just prevent copying of (usualy) 
 artistic works.


The bits that make up that artistic work is information!

If I take a screenshot of a computer program, that is considered copyright
infringement (in the US anyway, as I understand it. Disclaimer: I'm no lawyer,
so I might be wrong, but I don't think so.)

I'm not copying the work - I'm providing a detailed description
of a portion of it (its user interface).

If I write a piece of fan fiction starring Captain Kirk and the starship
Enterprise, I'm technically infringing on Paramount Picture's copyright,
since my book would be considered a derivative work of Star Trek.

That is the worst case - I would have copied no actual words, just the
abstract information of Kirk's characterisation. Yet, technically, the
law says I can't do that without Paramount's permission.


I'm sure that, at the very least, we can agree that several aspects of
copyright law are absurd, even if you accepted the rest of it.

But that is definitely information about the work that I cannot copy
under the law.


One could easily argue that transmitting something like source code
down the Internet is sending a very detailed description of the product
(product == the compiled executable) rather than copying the work.

I didn't copy the executable itself - I sent a detailed description of it.
This description just happens to be detailed enough for the compiler to create
a perfect copy from it.


The only difference between that description and a verbal description
of the program is the resolution of detail. In both cases, I am spreading
information about it.


 Actualy without copyright the chances of finding that library would be 
 greatly diminished. For a start if people want to they can already create 
 software and release with no restrictions. This option already exists.


Yes, indeed, and many people do (or something very close to no restrictions,
like the licenses in Phobos).

And there's an interesting question: why do people write software with
few restrictions now, when they could possibly make more money off
keeping it restricted? If copyright didn't exist, would those reasons
suddenly disappear? I say no:


 All that would happen if you killed copyright is the people who write and 
 release software in order to make a living would likely go out of business 
 and end up doing somthing else.


Maybe. Maybe not. Lots of existing free software is written for the
author's own personal use (hence their generally poor user interfaces...).

This stuff wouldn't go away. The demand is still present.

Demand is what drives commercial software too. Demand for something like
tax software wouldn't disappear without copyright, so tax software shouldn't
disappear either.

The payment model would probably switch to pay in advance. Someone
(more likely a group than individuals) would hire developers to write
the software so they can use it for themselves. Everyone else would then
use it as a kind of collateral damage. Damage isn't a good word to use here,
since no one is getting hurt, but I can't think of a better term.

A similar example to the concept I have in mind is in politics. The United
States Navy patrols the oceans of the world to protect American trade and
national interests. In doing so, other countries get to benefit from this
too - fighting piracy (the kind on the seas) benefits other countries,
since those pirate ships would attack anyone from any country and do their
damage, not just Americans. The other countries get this benefit without
them having to pay for it. Of course, again, the US doesn't do this for
benefit of other nations - it does it for itself. But, regardless, the job
is still done and everyone can still benefit from it.

Software would become similar. Everyone looks out for his own interests,
and other people can come along for the free ride without hurting anyone.


 So the idea that art / software production would flourish without copyright 
 is plain false, it's so false it's almost absurd.


How then do you explain the wealth of art that was created before copyright
was around? Or the vast amounts of free (or close to free) software on the
Web now?

-- 
Adam D. Ruppe
http://arsdnet.net
Aug 17 2008
next sibling parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
"Adam D. Ruppe" wrote

 If I take a screenshot of a computer program, that is considered copyright
 infringement (in the US anyway, as I understand it. Disclaimer: I'm no 
 lawyer,
 so I might be wrong, but I don't think so.)

 I'm not copying the work - I'm providing a detailed description
 of a portion of it (its user interface).


Nope.  The original author of the software cannot possibly copyright all 
possible screenshots.  Copyrights only apply to a specific piece of media, 
and since you were the creator of that media, you can copyright it.

However, it may contain trademarked elements, such as a logo.  However, it 
is possible to have trademarked material as long as you are critiquing 
something, and you represent who the owner of the trademark is properly.

Even if there was some possible way to copyright the UI, this should fall 
under fair use as you are presenting a 'clip' of a copyrighted piece of 
media for critique.


 If I write a piece of fan fiction starring Captain Kirk and the starship
 Enterprise, I'm technically infringing on Paramount Picture's copyright,
 since my book would be considered a derivative work of Star Trek.


Nope, but you are infringing on the trademark names of 'Captain Kirk' and 
the starship 'Enterprise'.  I think there is probably some restriction on 
making money from the trademark.

If you wrote a book with 'Captian Jerk' and the starship 'Doorprize', then 
you would have no problem :)


 That is the worst case - I would have copied no actual words, just the
 abstract information of Kirk's characterisation. Yet, technically, the
 law says I can't do that without Paramount's permission.


Because you would be using Paramount's trademarks in order to make money. 
There is a huge amount of weight behind those simple words, and most likely, 
you would enjoy Paramount's ability to sell anything that is star trek 
related, without having created the original idea.  That is why trademark 
law exists.


 One could easily argue that transmitting something like source code
 down the Internet is sending a very detailed description of the product
 (product == the compiled executable) rather than copying the work.


The source code is also copyrighted.  Copyright is inherently assigned to 
the author (even if he doesn't label it as such).  He can assign the 
copyright to someone else if he wants.


 I didn't copy the executable itself - I sent a detailed description of it.
 This description just happens to be detailed enough for the compiler to 
 create
 a perfect copy from it.


If you sent a detailed description of the source code (i.e. an english 
description of how it works), this is not a violation of copyright, as you 
cannot copyright ideas.  Many companies use 'clean room' techniques where 
one team disassembles code, figures out how it works, then describes that to 
another team which writes a compatible piece of software.  They are not 
infringing on copyright because the developers have not seen any of the 
original code.

In some countries, however, you can patent software 'business methods', i.e. 
ideas (which to me is absurd for software).


 The only difference between that description and a verbal description
 of the program is the resolution of detail. In both cases, I am spreading
 information about it.


No, the difference is that the code is copyrighted.  If you build the code 
from reverse engineering, it is a derivative work.  The verbal description 
is a description of the ideas, which are not copyrightable.

-Steve
Aug 18 2008
parent reply "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 10:01:41AM -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

  snip trademark explanation


Conceded.
 

 No, the difference is that the code is copyrighted.  If you build the code 
 from reverse engineering, it is a derivative work.  The verbal description 
 is a description of the ideas, which are not copyrightable.


Would it be fair to say information about the ideas is fine to spread,
but information about the specific implementation isn't?


 
 -Steve 
 


-- 
Adam D. Ruppe
http://arsdnet.net
Aug 18 2008
parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
"Adam D. Ruppe" wrote

 On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 10:01:41AM -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

  snip trademark explanation


 Conceded.


 No, the difference is that the code is copyrighted.  If you build the 
 code
 from reverse engineering, it is a derivative work.  The verbal 
 description
 is a description of the ideas, which are not copyrightable.


 Would it be fair to say information about the ideas is fine to spread,
 but information about the specific implementation isn't?


Hm... depending on the information about the specific implementation, that 
might be debatable.  For example, if you wanted to have a competing library 
that used the exact same API (i.e. a swappable replacement), I'm not sure 
that would be considered infringement, as there is no way to create a binary 
compatible API without copying exactly (e.g. Lesstif).  Most likely, this 
API is described in a document, so you could potentially write a new header 
file that had the same function names, but that wasn't a copy of the 
original header file.  But surely, if you describe the exact implementation, 
it is infringement.

Description of the concepts behind the implementation should be fine.

Please note, I am not a lawyer, so don't take this as legal advice ;)

-Steve
Aug 18 2008
parent Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:


 "Adam D. Ruppe" wrote

 On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 10:01:41AM -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

  snip trademark explanation


 Conceded.


 No, the difference is that the code is copyrighted.  If you build the
 code
 from reverse engineering, it is a derivative work.  The verbal
 description
 is a description of the ideas, which are not copyrightable.


 Would it be fair to say information about the ideas is fine to spread,
 but information about the specific implementation isn't?


 
 Hm... depending on the information about the specific implementation, that
 might be debatable.  For example, if you wanted to have a competing
 library that used the exact same API (i.e. a swappable replacement), I'm
 not sure that would be considered infringement, as there is no way to
 create a binary
 compatible API without copying exactly (e.g. Lesstif).  Most likely, this
 API is described in a document, so you could potentially write a new
 header file that had the same function names, but that wasn't a copy of
 the
 original header file.  But surely, if you describe the exact
 implementation, it is infringement.
 
 Description of the concepts behind the implementation should be fine.
 
 Please note, I am not a lawyer, so don't take this as legal advice ;)


I have seen commercial libraries implement exact same API as other
commercial libraries, and only been considered as healthy competition - it
is the same with Wine and their re-implementation of Windows API's - it
isn't possible to copyright or otherwise restrict the "use" of API's for
such a purpose - you cannot just copy the headers the API is described in
though - ref the MinGW windows header project.

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango
Aug 18 2008
prev sibling parent reply "Jb" <jb nowhere.com> writes:
"Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.9.1219031970.19733.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...

 On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 12:23:44AM +0100, Jb wrote:


 I do think you overstate what copyright actualy does. It doesnt prevent
 sharing of ideas and information. It just prevent copying of (usualy)
 artistic works.


 The bits that make up that artistic work is information!

 If I take a screenshot of a computer program, that is considered copyright
 infringement (in the US anyway, as I understand it. Disclaimer: I'm no 
 lawyer,
 so I might be wrong, but I don't think so.)


If i remember correctly this came up when someone got a pre release screen 
shot of one of the new versiosn of MacOS, they published this online. And 
Apple decided to sue them for breach of copyright as they wanted to keep it 
secret untill the big unveiling. Breach of copyright was the only avenue 
open to them iirc, and i dont know how it turned out but the point is moot.

That is an absurd abuse of copyright. It is not the norm.

So yes current copyright laws do sometimes produce undesirable results. And 
they are not perfect. And I agree that fair use should be expanded, and 
copyright lengths reduced.




 Actualy without copyright the chances of finding that library would be
 greatly diminished. For a start if people want to they can already create
 software and release with no restrictions. This option already exists.


 Yes, indeed, and many people do (or something very close to no 
 restrictions,
 like the licenses in Phobos).

 And there's an interesting question: why do people write software with
 few restrictions now, when they could possibly make more money off
 keeping it restricted? If copyright didn't exist, would those reasons
 suddenly disappear? I say no:


This is my point. Those people who want to can already work with free and 
open licences.

Disolving copyright wont change that.



 So the idea that art / software production would flourish without 
 copyright
 is plain false, it's so false it's almost absurd.


 How then do you explain the wealth of art that was created before 
 copyright
 was around? Or the vast amounts of free (or close to free) software on the
 Web now?


It's not that art or software would not be produced if we disolved 
copyright. It's that far far less of it would.

The amount of art produced prior to the 20th centuary is miniscule compared 
to what was produced during it. There have been millions of songs, books, 
and films that have made in the last 100 years.

If you compared that to what was made in just one of the centurarys of the 
Renaisence it would be like comparing mountain to a mole hill.

The simple fact is that the "patronage" system that was in use before hand 
is incredibly inneficient. It just doesnt work that well.

And your supposed ideas of how it could work just emphasise the point. The 
problem is that getting a 100 people together, and getting them to agree on 
what they want, and how much they will pay, and then finding someone who 
will do the work, is just absurd. You are insane if you think that system 
will be more efficient and more productive than the current copyright / 
capatilist one.

Free market, and free trade, will always batter such a system into the 
ground.

It's why you see very little art comming out of Comunist countrys in 
comparison to capatilist ones.

It's why capalism works. It's pragmatic rather than idealistic.
Aug 18 2008
parent reply "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 04:12:18PM +0100, Jb wrote:

 So yes current copyright laws do sometimes produce undesirable results. And 
 they are not perfect. And I agree that fair use should be expanded, and 
 copyright lengths reduced.


Agreed.


 The amount of art produced prior to the 20th centuary is miniscule compared 
 to what was produced during it. There have been millions of songs, books, 
 and films that have made in the last 100 years.


This isn't because of copyright. Copyright has been around since about 1700;
it didn't suddenly come to existence in 1900, so you can't say it is
the cause of the explosion of new stuff around that time.

What did change around 1900 is an explosion of industry, an explosion
of human population, and just a general explosion of wealth.

World population today is 4x bigger than it was in 1900, so all other
things being equal, it makes sense to see 4x more stuff created.

World population in 1800 was about 2/3 that of 1900.

[My source for the above numbers is Wikipedia:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population>]

It makes sense that the 20th century saw more stuff created than previous
centuries based on population growth alone. Similar situations exist in
general wealth factors - the average person today is much richer than the
average person 100 years ago, giving him more time to devote to stuff like
art.


Higher technology is also a significant factor. Thirty years ago, it is
unlikely someone like me would have been able to become a computer programmer
at all - I simply couldn't afford it. But now, computers are so cheap, and
the necessary programs so easy to get, that random high school students 
can pick it up and start making stuff.
(Thanks to Digital Mars here; I first learned C++ on the free download of dmc.)

And thanks to the Internet, those random students and look at a wealth of
existing stuff to learn from and release their own stuff with trivial ease.


Similar things exist in other fields. Anyone can now publish his own writings,
amateurs can create and publish images and animation.

Copyright might take some credit for this. I'm sure it does, as
without it, something like Digital Mars might not exist at all. But it
can't anything near to all the credit, and now since this situation already
exists, removing copyright isn't going to suddenly erase what is already
done.


 And your supposed ideas of how it could work just emphasise the point. The 
 problem is that getting a 100 people together, and getting them to agree on 
 what they want, and how much they will pay, and then finding someone who 
 will do the work, is just absurd.


Nonsense.

Create a website with a donation system. Someone looking for the software
you are about to have written can find this website and decide if he wants
to help pay the developer to write it or if he simply doesn't want it to
get done.

The donation system wouldn't be just a donation system, it would be entering
into a contract to get what you paid for - if the developer doesn't deliver,
you get your money back.

Furthermore, since you are paying into the contract, you get a say in
what you want. Perhaps shareholders can vote on acceptance tests or
on must have features to write into the contract.


Exactly like they would when buying packaged software, except here they
pay first then get the software made rather than the other way around. 


 You are insane if you think that system 
 will be more efficient and more productive than the current copyright / 
 capatilist one.


This /is/ a capitalist system. People invest in a product to suit their
own needs - that's the very definition of capitalism.

Even the obvious downside of the above plan: someone chooses not to invest
hoping that someone else will and he still benefits, is purely capitalist.
He is looking out for his own interests, trying to get the most product
for the least amount of money. The counterbalance to this is that if he
doesn't invest in it, he might not get what he wants, or it might not be
created at all. So he has to make a decision.

If I was a software developer in such a world, I'd keep the current list
of shareholders and amount of money I've been paid a secret. Then
someone looking at the website doesn't know if he has to invest or not
to get the product, so hopefully, he will, meaning I get a bit more
profit.

The customer is safe in donating to me, even if I don't get enough
capital to make the product, since if I don't deliver, he can sue me for
his money back.


That is pure, unrestrained and safe competition in a wholly capitalist system.

-- 
Adam D. Ruppe
http://arsdnet.net
Aug 18 2008
parent reply "Jb" <jb nowhere.com> writes:
"Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.13.1219076519.19733.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...

 And your supposed ideas of how it could work just emphasise the point. 
 The
 problem is that getting a 100 people together, and getting them to agree 
 on
 what they want, and how much they will pay, and then finding someone who
 will do the work, is just absurd.


 Nonsense.

 Create a website with a donation system. Someone looking for the software
 you are about to have written can find this website and decide if he wants
 to help pay the developer to write it or if he simply doesn't want it to
 get done.

 The donation system wouldn't be just a donation system, it would be 
 entering
 into a contract to get what you paid for - if the developer doesn't 
 deliver,
 you get your money back.


I know people who have done things like this. They get 1000s of downloads 
and accaisionaly someone donates 5 bucks.

It doesnt work.

The vast majority of people will not pay if they dont have to.

One guy i know who actualy releases his plugins as donationware got so 
little money he had to shut his website down because he couldnt afford the 
hosting costs. Yes he got a 10 page thread full of people saying "oh no 
thats so sad, your plugins are great, hope you get back online soon".

But in spite of all those people, of all the thousands of downloads, people 
didnt donate enough for him to pay for the bandwidth to run his website.

Really, it does not work.

It may work for massive projects, with tens or hundreds of thousands of 
users, but for small to medium size enterprize it will never work. At least 
not for anything but a handful of developers.



 Furthermore, since you are paying into the contract, you get a say in
 what you want. Perhaps shareholders can vote on acceptance tests or
 on must have features to write into the contract.


It's hard enough getting half a dozen people to decide on what features to 
include in a prjoect they are all working on without having a couple of 
hundred "investors" arguing over it as well.

The problem is firstly "too many cooks" and secondly "too much 
administration".

It's absurd.

And actualy, if I had to bend to the whim of my customers on every single 
thing my product would actualy be worse for it. It would be the worst case 
of design by commitee ever.

So not only would your scheme stiffle creativity in general. It would also 
stiffle individual creativity.



 Exactly like they would when buying packaged software, except here they
 pay first then get the software made rather than the other way around.


 You are insane if you think that system
 will be more efficient and more productive than the current copyright /
 capatilist one.


 This /is/ a capitalist system. People invest in a product to suit their
 own needs - that's the very definition of capitalism.


If I dont own the product I am producing then no it's not a capatilist 
system. The fundamental mechanism in capatilism is private ownership, 
whether of physical or intellectual property.



 Even the obvious downside of the above plan: someone chooses not to invest
 hoping that someone else will and he still benefits, is purely capitalist.
 He is looking out for his own interests, trying to get the most product
 for the least amount of money.


Another obvious downside is that people dont like having to wait. They want 
the product now.

So not only is it crippled by the problems of "design by commitiee", and the 
problems of "excesive administration", it's also crippled by the fact that 
consumers dont want to have to wait 12 months to get what they paid for.



 The counterbalance to this is that if he
 doesn't invest in it, he might not get what he wants, or it might not be
 created at all. So he has to make a decision.


So you expect customers are going to wander around the interent, investing 
money in lots of different projects that might or might not give them what 
they want in 6 months time?

And then when half these schemes fail they are going to go chasing the 
developers up to get their money back?

CUCKOO!



 If I was a software developer in such a world, I'd keep the current list
 of shareholders and amount of money I've been paid a secret. Then
 someone looking at the website doesn't know if he has to invest or not
 to get the product, so hopefully, he will, meaning I get a bit more
 profit.

 The customer is safe in donating to me, even if I don't get enough
 capital to make the product, since if I don't deliver, he can sue me for
 his money back.

 That is pure, unrestrained and safe competition in a wholly capitalist 
 system.


Look there's been nothing stopping businesses operating like that for 
decades, maybe even centuaries. If it did work, if it was so much better 
than the current system, we'd be talking about the multitude of businesses 
that do actualy work that way.

And yet we're not.
Aug 18 2008
parent reply "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 06:28:57PM +0100, Jb wrote:

 I know people who have done things like this. They get 1000s of downloads 
 and accaisionaly someone donates 5 bucks.


That's not the same. What I'm proposing is that the software plain
isn't written if you don't get enough money up front.

Downloading it isn't an option at all until the money is already paid,
because before then, the software doesn't exist yet.


 The vast majority of people will not pay if they dont have to.


Right, so the trick is to make it so they think they have to. Tax season
is coming up, and you really wish you had a program up to date with 
this year's tax code to help you out. Uh oh, no program exists, but there
is a development company saying they'll make one if they get a total
of $100,000 in investments.

Someone else might pay for it, but everyone would think that, so the
rational person has to assume that no one is going to pay for it, thus,
the software will never be written and he won't be able to use it.

Since he wants to use it, he must buy into the company. Of course, he can't
afford $100k up front, and even if he could, it isn't worth that much to him,
so he puts in a fraction of the total and hopes other people think the same
way.

If they do, good, they all get the product. If they don't, he can demand
his money back, since the development company didn't deliver the product.


 It may work for massive projects, with tens or hundreds of thousands of 
 users, but for small to medium size enterprize it will never work. At least 
 not for anything but a handful of developers.


Valid: I could see it being very hard for someone with a poor reputation
to get started, but that's again where the satisfaction guaranteed or your
money back clause comes in. Potential investors have very little risk
giving a new guy a chance, since they have little to lose if he fails.


 It's hard enough getting half a dozen people to decide on what features to 
 include in a prjoect they are all working on without having a couple of 
 hundred "investors" arguing over it as well.


Put a price on each feature.

If you want feature A, you have to pay an additional $1000 total.
Feature B is an additional $500.

An investor says "well, feature A is worth $20 to me, so I'll buy it." If
50 other investors feel the same way, then feature A gets implemented -
they paid for it, so they should get it.

If not, then it doesn't happen.

Adding a direct price up front for features is an easy way to keep them
limited. You set the prices so features that you really don't think are
a good idea cost more, to discourage people from buying them.

Then if they do buy it, you still win, since you get more money.


 And actualy, if I had to bend to the whim of my customers on every single 
 thing my product would actualy be worse for it. It would be the worst case 
 of design by commitee ever.


Well, it is still your product, so you can always do it a different way.
This is just a suggestion, just like copyright restrictions are a
suggestion on how to make money.



 If I dont own the product I am producing then no it's not a capatilist 
 system. The fundamental mechanism in capatilism is private ownership, 
 whether of physical or intellectual property.


So construction contractors aren't capitalists? They don't own the building
they were hired to build either. They do own their time and skill though,
just like a software developer working as a contractor.


 Another obvious downside is that people dont like having to wait. They want 
 the product now.


Good point, and businesses could specialize in this.

Someone could put up an offer saying that the software is already
written, and if we receive X dollars, we'll release it. If not, we'll
delete the whole thing.

It is like selling the software, but doing so in such a way that piracy
is impossible. By the time the program is out in the open so it can be pirated,
the company already has their money and doesn't care anymore.


 So you expect customers are going to wander around the interent, investing 
 money in lots of different projects that might or might not give them what 
 they want in 6 months time?


So you expect customers are going to wander around the Internet, investing
money in lots of different projects that might nor might not give them
what they want when the download is complete?

That's what copyrighted software as the product does and people are willing
to do it.


 And then when half these schemes fail they are going to go chasing the 
 developers up to get their money back?
 
 CUCKOO!


It's their money, if they want to throw it away, fine. But if you invested
money in something and you didn't get that something, you'd probably want
your money back too, and since you have a contract (again, this
isn't just a donation button I'm talking about), you can prove that you
deserve it back to a court of law.


 Look there's been nothing stopping businesses operating like that for 
 decades, maybe even centuaries.


Yes, and things have been done that way for centuries. This isn't an original
idea.

How are buildings designed, constructed and maintained? One option there
is a building as a product - you build it and wait for someone to come and
buy it. I think that is how Donald Trump made his money.

The other option is you wait for someone to hire you to build it to their
specifications. This is how most construction companies and architecture
firms make their money.


-- 
Adam D. Ruppe
http://arsdnet.net
Aug 18 2008
next sibling parent reply Benji Smith <dlanguage benjismith.net> writes:
Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 Downloading it isn't an option at all until the money is already paid,
 because before then, the software doesn't exist yet.
 

 The vast majority of people will not pay if they dont have to.


 
 Right, so the trick is to make it so they think they have to. Tax season
 is coming up, and you really wish you had a program up to date with 
 this year's tax code to help you out. Uh oh, no program exists, but there
 is a development company saying they'll make one if they get a total
 of $100,000 in investments.
 
 Someone else might pay for it, but everyone would think that, so the
 rational person has to assume that no one is going to pay for it, thus,
 the software will never be written and he won't be able to use it.


Adam, you have some mind-bogglingly weird ideas about software 
development, creativity, sociology, economics, etc, etc.

Last year, I downloaded TurboTax on April 14th. For about $25. Without 
joining a co-op or voting or features or pledging to pay for the future 
delivery of undeveloped software or anything like that. It was easier 
than buying a candy bar, and took less time.

--benji
Aug 18 2008
parent "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 03:41:14PM -0400, Benji Smith wrote:

 Last year, I downloaded TurboTax on April 14th. For about $25. 


Which means you gave them $25 in a vote saying you want them to make
a product with similar features for next year.

My scheme really isn't that different.

-- 
Adam D. Ruppe
http://arsdnet.net
Aug 18 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Jb" <jb nowhere.com> writes:
"Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.15.1219085627.19733.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...

 On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 06:28:57PM +0100, Jb wrote:

 I know people who have done things like this. They get 1000s of downloads
 and accaisionaly someone donates 5 bucks.


 That's not the same. What I'm proposing is that the software plain
 isn't written if you don't get enough money up front.


I know I was just emphasising how reluctant people are to part with their 
money when they dont have to. And likewise how reluctant they still are even 
when they see a developer whose products they apparently use & love shutting 
up shop.



 The vast majority of people will not pay if they dont have to.


 Right, so the trick is to make it so they think they have to. Tax season
 is coming up, and you really wish you had a program up to date with
 this year's tax code to help you out. Uh oh, no program exists, but there
 is a development company saying they'll make one if they get a total
 of $100,000 in investments.


Im sorry that just wont work. If you cant get people to donate for somthing 
they can download and use today, you wont get them to donate for somthing 
that they might or might not get in 6 months time.

They will use the exact same rationale that they use already for pirating 
movies.

Whether they pay or not will be a drop in the ocean. It'll make little 
difference if they buy into the scheme or not. So they may as well let other 
people do it.



 Someone else might pay for it, but everyone would think that, so the
 rational person has to assume that no one is going to pay for it, thus,
 the software will never be written and he won't be able to use it.


No the rational person would think "Look it's gonna take 10,000 people to 
get this up and running, whether I invest or not doesnt matter, and the 
developers are probably raking it in anyway"

And on top of that I have no guarantee of what I will get. They could just 
code up some piece of crap and then I've wasted my money.

And no, some kind of "quality validation" mechanism wouldnt work, it'd add 
so much pointless overhead and chaff to an already cumbersome and 
inneficient business model.



 Since he wants to use it, he must buy into the company. Of course, he 
 can't
 afford $100k up front, and even if he could, it isn't worth that much to 
 him,
 so he puts in a fraction of the total and hopes other people think the 
 same
 way.


Or he thinks "screw that" and looks elsewhere. <g>



 It may work for massive projects, with tens or hundreds of thousands of
 users, but for small to medium size enterprize it will never work. At 
 least
 not for anything but a handful of developers.


 Valid: I could see it being very hard for someone with a poor reputation
 to get started, but that's again where the satisfaction guaranteed or your
 money back clause comes in. Potential investors have very little risk
 giving a new guy a chance, since they have little to lose if he fails.


What I'm saying is that your kind of scheme would require a very high number 
of investors. People will be far less willing to invest 100$ in somthing 
they might get 6 months from now than they will be to spend $100 on somthing 
they can download now, where they can try the demo and see if they like it.

So for smaller enterpises where the number of customers and margins are 
already small. Your scheme simply would not work.

I would be out of business in 6 months with you as my business adviser.

Sorry.

And yes it would make entry into the market much hard for new upstarts.



 It's hard enough getting half a dozen people to decide on what features 
 to
 include in a prjoect they are all working on without having a couple of
 hundred "investors" arguing over it as well.


 Put a price on each feature.

 If you want feature A, you have to pay an additional $1000 total.
 Feature B is an additional $500.

 An investor says "well, feature A is worth $20 to me, so I'll buy it." If
 50 other investors feel the same way, then feature A gets implemented -
 they paid for it, so they should get it.

 If not, then it doesn't happen.

 Adding a direct price up front for features is an easy way to keep them
 limited. You set the prices so features that you really don't think are
 a good idea cost more, to discourage people from buying them.

 Then if they do buy it, you still win, since you get more money.


Oh FFS.. why dont I just run a raffle or a tombola?

I'd spend more time auctioning features, talking customers, running voting 
systems, managing who'd paid what, and who wants how much back because this 
or that didnt apear.

I'd never have any time for programming.



 If I dont own the product I am producing then no it's not a capatilist
 system. The fundamental mechanism in capatilism is private ownership,
 whether of physical or intellectual property.


 So construction contractors aren't capitalists? They don't own the 
 building
 they were hired to build either. They do own their time and skill though,
 just like a software developer working as a contractor.


They *COULD* own it if they want. And a lot of small building contractors do 
do it this way.

What you are doing is removing that possibility from them.

You are forcing them to only do business as a service.



 Another obvious downside is that people dont like having to wait. They 
 want
 the product now.


 Good point, and businesses could specialize in this.

 Someone could put up an offer saying that the software is already
 written, and if we receive X dollars, we'll release it. If not, we'll
 delete the whole thing.


And the customer will think "Heck they've already written it, they are going 
to release sooner or later because otherwise they loose every pennty of 
their investment"



 It is like selling the software, but doing so in such a way that piracy
 is impossible. By the time the program is out in the open so it can be 
 pirated,
 the company already has their money and doesn't care anymore.


It wont work... i think the donationware / honesty box model would probably 
work better than that would.



 So you expect customers are going to wander around the interent, 
 investing
 money in lots of different projects that might or might not give them 
 what
 they want in 6 months time?


 So you expect customers are going to wander around the Internet, investing
 money in lots of different projects that might nor might not give them
 what they want when the download is complete?


They can download a demo and try it first.

Or they have 14 day money back guarentee.

Of they can sell the product to someone else.



 That's what copyrighted software as the product does and people are 
 willing
 to do it.


Except they can usualy try a demo. And they dont have to wait for months to 
get it. And once purchased the product still has intrinsic value. They can 
sell it on to someone else.

Whereas with your model the software is worthless to the customer, it has no 
resale value because now anyone can download and use it for free.



 And then when half these schemes fail they are going to go chasing the
 developers up to get their money back?

 CUCKOO!


 It's their money, if they want to throw it away, fine. But if you invested
 money in something and you didn't get that something, you'd probably want
 your money back too, and since you have a contract (again, this
 isn't just a donation button I'm talking about), you can prove that you
 deserve it back to a court of law.


Yes and how often do consumers take companies to court over a 50$ payment?

And say I'm a budding record producer, and I've bought into 15 of these 
schemes in the last year. 7 still havnt turned up the goods.

Am i going to go round chassing up all these microdonations?

Dont we have enough shit to do in our lifes with out complicating the 
purchase of software to such an extent that I have to keep track of all my 
investments, and the promises and requestes I made for each one?



 Look there's been nothing stopping businesses operating like that for
 decades, maybe even centuaries.


 Yes, and things have been done that way for centuries. This isn't an 
 original
 idea.


Lots of them? Are there lots of businesses working this way?

Nope.



 How are buildings designed, constructed and maintained? One option there
 is a building as a product - you build it and wait for someone to come and
 buy it. I think that is how Donald Trump made his money.


Yes and this is still how it's done in the vast majority of cases.



 The other option is you wait for someone to hire you to build it to their
 specifications. This is how most construction companies and architecture
 firms make their money.


A bad analogy. Do we see hundreds of people clubbing togther in order to 
finance the building of residential tower blocks, or residential estates?

No we dont.

We do see big companies comissioning buildings, or developments. But that is 
actualy little different from big companies commisioning custom made 
software.

Sure it happens, but in the vast majoirty of cases people / businesses dont 
need custom made software. So that model doesnt work because it's many 
orders of magnitude cheaper for it to be produced via the generic product 
based model.
Aug 18 2008
parent "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
This is taking way more time than I bargained for, so this will probably
be my last word on the subject. I have real work I need to be doing.

My plan isn't at all as radical as it might look. In practice, I would
expect something like this:

  Liked 1.0? Pre-order 2.0 now, and remember, if we don't get enough
  pre-orders, 2.0 will never be released, and this is no bluff.

I say we come back to this debate in ten years and see what has happened.
I'm willing to guess that regardless of our personal opinions on copyright
in principle, the fact is that it will lose its effectiveness as piracy
continues to grow and it doesn't look like piracy will stop growing.

My plan might be a way around this, and it might not be. Heck, most businesses
fail even in the best of times, and this would likely be no exception. Either 
way, software as a product like we see now is something I expect to be dead
or mostly dead by 2020 and something will take its place.

The reality is it looks like piracy is here to stay. We need to make the
best of that fact if we want to survive in the business of programming.

If I'm wrong, you'll have my full concession in the next decade  :)

-- 
Adam D. Ruppe
http://arsdnet.net
Aug 18 2008
prev sibling parent Jussi Jumppanen <jussij zeusedit.com> writes:
Adam D. Ruppe Wrote:


 but there is a development company saying they'll make 
 one if they get a total of $100,000 in investments.


The $100,000 is the about enough to pay the wage of 
one developer for about one year.

Once you add in a few Tax specialist to do the design, a 
few more developers, some QA people and someone to write 
the documentation, the wages bill would be much closer to 
the $1,000,000 mark.
Aug 18 2008
prev sibling parent Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:
Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 06:58:13PM +0100, Jb wrote:

 I think the mistake you and Yigal are making is assuming that it should all 
 be done in the same way.


 
 My own position is may be a little weird. As far as rights to information
 goes, there are a two:
 
 1) You cannot force someone to divulge anything.
 
 Thus, he is free to charge someone for a piece of information if he wants.
 
 2) You cannot force someone /not/ to divulge something.
 
 Thus, once you tell someone something, he is free to resell it if he wants.
 
 In short, I'm saying a person can choose to tell or not tell whatever he
 wants.
 
 


 face undesirable consequences.


Copyright has no relevance to the spread of information. That's what 
NDAs and opaque governments are for. You are absolutely free to divulge 
anything and everything you know about copyrighted material. You just 
can't copy if for distribution. Go ahead, write an essay describing the 
inner workings of the copyrighted software you've reverse engineered so 
that others can recreate it. You'll violate no copyright by doing so 
(and no need to mention the DMCA -- that's nothing to do with copyright 
and everything to do with corporate bottom lines). That's information 
and you are at total liberty to spread it as you see fit. The software 
itself is *not* information.
Aug 17 2008
prev sibling parent reply Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:
bobef wrote:


 Anyway. In my opinion it comes down to greed cause no one is stealing
 anything. Just some people are not willing to share although they are not
 losing anything. And to lose something you must own it. So you can't lose
 a million dollars of sales because you haven't sold anything in the first
 place. If authors were more conscious (less greedy) they would share
 because if the users were more conscious (less living in a society where
 everyone wants to *make you* pay for something) they would show gratitude
 by paying.


So in effect you are saying that software developers expecting to live of it
are silly, because the rest in general are dishonest?


-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango
Aug 15 2008
parent bobef <bobef nosmap-abv.bg> writes:
Lars Ivar Igesund Wrote:


 bobef wrote:
 

 Anyway. In my opinion it comes down to greed cause no one is stealing
 anything. Just some people are not willing to share although they are not
 losing anything. And to lose something you must own it. So you can't lose
 a million dollars of sales because you haven't sold anything in the first
 place. If authors were more conscious (less greedy) they would share
 because if the users were more conscious (less living in a society where
 everyone wants to *make you* pay for something) they would show gratitude
 by paying.


 
 So in effect you are saying that software developers expecting to live of it
 are silly, because the rest in general are dishonest?
 
 


Haha. I didn't say they are silly. But it is a fact that people in general are
dishonest so it becomes harder (as many other things) :) I am saying that
developers need to adapt. If they treat software as chairs they may fail to
live of their work. I am developer and I live (mostly) of it so it still
possible.

Dishonest or not this is not stealing. It sucks if you make a lot of effort for
something and nobody buys it, I know. But fist of all examine the quality of
what you are selling. People are not buying effort but results. Then if you
think (I don't mean personally you) you are selling a good product and people
are still pirating it, then the dishonesty could be the case. And then the one
who did the effort becomes emotional and all of that, but at the end everyone
should be happy, because at least one of the parties got something (without
depriving the other party of anything). It is better for someone to make use of
the work, although he didn't buy it, than neither using it nor buying it.

And the important point that is somehow related to the topic: this licensing
stuff IMO is waste of time. Nobody can blame Phobos/Tango for stealing because
nothing is stolen. But I think Walter has point about corporate lawyers and all
of that, because these people care only about the money, not about the logic
about stealing or not stealing. Lol.

Regards,
bobef
Aug 15 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent Lutger <lutger.blijdestijn gmail.com> writes:
Robert Fraser wrote:
...

 I see the D community heading for a split. One side will be D1 (hopefully
 a D 1.5) +tango, and the other side will be D2+phobos.  I don't think of
 this as a bad thing nessescarily, just two different directions.


I find this all to be a bit confusing. A 'split' was kind of inevitable
since the D2 branch and the phobos / tango division. (Actually since D2
there was more unification for a while, because a stable version of D
didn't exist before.) But this kind of split was (is?) also something
temporary and had workarounds (tangobos). At least I perceived it as
temporary, until now.

What do you mean by a D 1.5? This all gives the vague impression there is a
movement towards forking the language itself. That's not a split in the D
community, more like part of the D community saying goodbye and starting
their own language with a seperate community. I hope I'm wrong here, but
would like to know if this is the case or intent.
Aug 14 2008
prev sibling parent Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeiros+spam com.gmail> writes:
Robert Fraser wrote:

 Sean Kelly Wrote:
 

 == Quote from Moritz Warning (moritzwarning web.de)'s article

 On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:29:45 +0400, Denis Koroskin wrote:

 The biggest issue is diffent Tango and Phobos runtime implementation, I
 think.
 I didn't find any bugzilla reports on this subject, though. :(


 I haven't taken a look at those runtime implementation differences,
 but I wonder why there are no activities to solve this issue.
 It makes it look like the participants are playing the golden throne
 game...


 Unfortunately, for this to be resolved it requires cooperation from both
 sides.  It takes two to Tango, as they say (sorry, bad joke).


 Sean


 
 I see the D community heading for a split. One side will be D1 (hopefully a D
1.5) +tango, and the other side will be D2+phobos.  I don't think of this as a
bad thing nessescarily, just two different directions.


Oh, it would definitely be bad, that's for sure. Any such duplication of 
effort in a developing language such as D would be very harmful. Having 
two standard libraries is already bad IMO, but having each standard 
library force the use of a particular D language version... now that 
would be disastrous!

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - Software Developer, MSc. in CS/E graduate
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D
Aug 15 2008
prev sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Sean Kelly wrote:

 Unfortunately, for this to be resolved it requires cooperation from both
 sides.  It takes two to Tango, as they say (sorry, bad joke).


For my part, I have explicitly allowed the Tango team to look at, use 
and incorporate any part of Phobos into Tango without prejudice and 
release it under the Tango license (excluding stuff that I didn't write 
that has its own copyright license terms). A lot of the new stuff, such 
as the array op code are even in the public domain to make it super easy.

In order for Phobos to move towards compatibility, I need a reciprocal 
statement from the Tango team. The Tango license does not allow this, 
and I try to be very careful in making sure Phobos is clean from a legal 
standpoint.

Sean and Don have been most generous in offering such, but the rest of 
the Tango team have not been willing to, and they have every right to 
not do so, but it does stand in the way of cooperation.

P.S. The reason for the relicense when code is transferred is to avoid 
the untenable situation of one module in the library having different 
licenses for different sections of code.
Aug 13 2008
parent reply Brad Roberts <braddr bellevue.puremagic.com> writes:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Walter Bright wrote:


 Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:32:32 -0700
 From: Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com>
 Reply-To: digitalmars.D <digitalmars-d puremagic.com>
 To: digitalmars-d puremagic.com
 Newsgroups: digitalmars.D
 Subject: Re: Tango vs Phobos
 
 Sean Kelly wrote:

 Unfortunately, for this to be resolved it requires cooperation from both
 sides.  It takes two to Tango, as they say (sorry, bad joke).


 
 For my part, I have explicitly allowed the Tango team to look at, use and
 incorporate any part of Phobos into Tango without prejudice and release it
 under the Tango license (excluding stuff that I didn't write that has its own
 copyright license terms). A lot of the new stuff, such as the array op code
 are even in the public domain to make it super easy.
 
 In order for Phobos to move towards compatibility, I need a reciprocal
 statement from the Tango team. The Tango license does not allow this, and I
 try to be very careful in making sure Phobos is clean from a legal standpoint.
 
 Sean and Don have been most generous in offering such, but the rest of the
 Tango team have not been willing to, and they have every right to not do so,
 but it does stand in the way of cooperation.
 
 P.S. The reason for the relicense when code is transferred is to avoid the
 untenable situation of one module in the library having different licenses for
 different sections of code.


Additionally, Sean has had commit access to phobos for well over a year.  
As far as I can recall, there's been no submits.  I did a good bit of 
unification of the thread model at one point (though far from complete), 
and was accused of stealing code from Tango (no, I'm not going to try to 
dig up exact quotes).  It left a rather sour taste in my mouth at which 
point my enthusiasm was somewhat diminished.  I let the license issue 
further stall any effort on my part.

I hate airing dirty laundry, so I hope this to be my one and only post on 
the topic.

Sigh,
Brad
Aug 13 2008
next sibling parent reply Brad Roberts <braddr bellevue.puremagic.com> writes:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Brad Roberts wrote:


 As far as I can recall, there's been no submits.  I did a good bit of 
 unification of the thread model at one point (though far from complete), 
 and was accused of stealing code from Tango (no, I'm not going to try to 
 dig up exact quotes).


Sorry.. the implication was that Sean made the accusations which isn't the 
case.  He was very helpful in integrating the changes and reviewing both 
the tango and phobos changes that I made -- obviously far more on the 
phobos side.

Sigh,
Brad
Aug 13 2008
parent Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
Brad Roberts wrote:

 On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Brad Roberts wrote:
 

 As far as I can recall, there's been no submits.  I did a good bit of 
 unification of the thread model at one point (though far from complete), 
 and was accused of stealing code from Tango (no, I'm not going to try to 
 dig up exact quotes).


 
 Sorry.. the implication was that Sean made the accusations which isn't the 
 case.  He was very helpful in integrating the changes and reviewing both 
 the tango and phobos changes that I made -- obviously far more on the 
 phobos side.


As an aside... that code change review tool you had set up on PureMagic 
was super cool.


Sean
Aug 14 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:
Brad Roberts wrote:


 On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Walter Bright wrote:
 

 Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:32:32 -0700
 From: Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com>
 Reply-To: digitalmars.D <digitalmars-d puremagic.com>
 To: digitalmars-d puremagic.com
 Newsgroups: digitalmars.D
 Subject: Re: Tango vs Phobos
 
 Sean Kelly wrote:

 Unfortunately, for this to be resolved it requires cooperation from
 both
 sides.  It takes two to Tango, as they say (sorry, bad joke).


 
 For my part, I have explicitly allowed the Tango team to look at, use and
 incorporate any part of Phobos into Tango without prejudice and release
 it under the Tango license (excluding stuff that I didn't write that has
 its own copyright license terms). A lot of the new stuff, such as the
 array op code are even in the public domain to make it super easy.
 
 In order for Phobos to move towards compatibility, I need a reciprocal
 statement from the Tango team. The Tango license does not allow this, and
 I try to be very careful in making sure Phobos is clean from a legal
 standpoint.
 
 Sean and Don have been most generous in offering such, but the rest of
 the Tango team have not been willing to, and they have every right to not
 do so, but it does stand in the way of cooperation.
 
 P.S. The reason for the relicense when code is transferred is to avoid
 the untenable situation of one module in the library having different
 licenses for different sections of code.


 
 Additionally, Sean has had commit access to phobos for well over a year.
 As far as I can recall, there's been no submits.  I did a good bit of
 unification of the thread model at one point (though far from complete),
 and was accused of stealing code from Tango (no, I'm not going to try to
 dig up exact quotes).  It left a rather sour taste in my mouth at which
 point my enthusiasm was somewhat diminished.  I let the license issue
 further stall any effort on my part.
 
 I hate airing dirty laundry, so I hope this to be my one and only post on
 the topic.


To be fair, there was anger at the approach chosen on your side when
starting with this work, and too strong words may have been used, and if I
was guilty, I am sorry for that. As it was, we didn't in any way feel that
what happened in any way reflected what we talked to Walter about at the
conference.

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango
Aug 14 2008
prev sibling parent Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
Brad Roberts wrote:

 On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Walter Bright wrote:
 

 Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:32:32 -0700
 From: Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com>
 Reply-To: digitalmars.D <digitalmars-d puremagic.com>
 To: digitalmars-d puremagic.com
 Newsgroups: digitalmars.D
 Subject: Re: Tango vs Phobos

 Sean Kelly wrote:

 Unfortunately, for this to be resolved it requires cooperation from both
 sides.  It takes two to Tango, as they say (sorry, bad joke).


 For my part, I have explicitly allowed the Tango team to look at, use and
 incorporate any part of Phobos into Tango without prejudice and release it
 under the Tango license (excluding stuff that I didn't write that has its own
 copyright license terms). A lot of the new stuff, such as the array op code
 are even in the public domain to make it super easy.

 In order for Phobos to move towards compatibility, I need a reciprocal
 statement from the Tango team. The Tango license does not allow this, and I
 try to be very careful in making sure Phobos is clean from a legal standpoint.

 Sean and Don have been most generous in offering such, but the rest of the
 Tango team have not been willing to, and they have every right to not do so,
 but it does stand in the way of cooperation.

 P.S. The reason for the relicense when code is transferred is to avoid the
 untenable situation of one module in the library having different licenses for
 different sections of code.


 
 Additionally, Sean has had commit access to phobos for well over a year.  
 As far as I can recall, there's been no submits.  I did a good bit of 
 unification of the thread model at one point (though far from complete), 
 and was accused of stealing code from Tango (no, I'm not going to try to 
 dig up exact quotes).  It left a rather sour taste in my mouth at which 
 point my enthusiasm was somewhat diminished.  I let the license issue 
 further stall any effort on my part.


I don't even have time to maintain the Tango runtime, let alone the 
Phobos runtime as well.  And I honestly don't know what I should change 
given that I don't know what the plan is for the Phobos runtime.  As for 
accusations about stealing code, I will only say that I never made any 
such accusations.  But I do recall some contention at the time for your 
having full commit rights to Tango, etc, so I do understand your concern.


Sean
Aug 14 2008
prev sibling parent Jason House <jason.james.house gmail.com> writes:
Nick B Wrote:


 Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:

 dsimcha wrote:
 

 What about, at least initially, releasing a subset of Tango for D2 and
 gradually
 porting more as issues are fixed?  For example, just for now, just release
 whatever subset of Tango is high-level enough to run on top of the D2
 Phobos runtime and isn't plagued too severely by const issues, even if it
 doesn't mesh
 perfectly, i.e. requires some casting, etc. on the part of client code. 


 
 There isn't really a subset of Tango that can run on top of any Phobos
 runtime. The Tango runtime probably works fine with D2 without any major
 changes, it is the user library that is problematic. The work on the
 porting has begun in a branch in Tango's svn repository, but cannot be
 continued properly until certain issues are fixed.
 

 I'm not really sure, but I would guess that this would leave a reasonably
 large subset with plenty of useful things.

 To be honest, I'm not sure how feasible this is, but I thought I would
 throw it
 out there as a suggestion.  Tango is a huge library with tons of nice
 stuff, and it seems like a shame that D2 users can't use any of it if only
 parts of it are broken.


 
 It is typically the behaviour of certain core parts (text manipulation, io)
 that doesn't work properly, and so most of the other parts of Tango won't
 work either. Right now it isn't really compilable either if I understand
 correctly. But we got people on it! :)
 
 Really, it would be swell if Tango could work with D2, but currently D2 is
 not usable for a library like Tango.
 


 So what is the plan to resolve these creative differences ?
 
 When is the Tango team and Walter going to get in the same room to 
 thrash though these differences, because if these issues are not 
 resolved, then the split will get wider, and wider.  Finally, both 
 communities will go their separate ways, and the community (both D and 
 Tango) will burn and die.


I recognize a number of core Tango folks participating in this thread. I find
it very telling that Walter has not found this thread sufficiently interesting
to reply.
Aug 13 2008
prev sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:

 There isn't really a subset of Tango that can run on top of any Phobos
 runtime. The Tango runtime probably works fine with D2 without any major
 changes, it is the user library that is problematic. The work on the
 porting has begun in a branch in Tango's svn repository, but cannot be
 continued properly until certain issues are fixed.


I don't understand. I fixed the one issue you identified to me that was 
impeding Tango on D2 (Bugzilla 1644, and 2204 is the same). What else is 
there?
Aug 13 2008
parent reply Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:


 Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:

 There isn't really a subset of Tango that can run on top of any Phobos
 runtime. The Tango runtime probably works fine with D2 without any major
 changes, it is the user library that is problematic. The work on the
 porting has begun in a branch in Tango's svn repository, but cannot be
 continued properly until certain issues are fixed.


 
 I don't understand. I fixed the one issue you identified to me that was
 impeding Tango on D2 (Bugzilla 1644, and 2204 is the same). What else is
 there?


I wasn't aware that 2204 was a duplicate of 1644, and I guess Steven wasn't
either. If there are no further stumbling blocks, all are great :)
Although, clearly, the better solution would be fixing Bugzilla 1961, 1644
is only a workaround for that.

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango
Aug 14 2008
next sibling parent "Denis Koroskin" <2korden gmail.com> writes:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:02:46 +0400, Lars Ivar Igesund  
<larsivar igesund.net> wrote:


 Walter Bright wrote:


 Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:

 There isn't really a subset of Tango that can run on top of any Phobos
 runtime. The Tango runtime probably works fine with D2 without any  
 major
 changes, it is the user library that is problematic. The work on the
 porting has begun in a branch in Tango's svn repository, but cannot be
 continued properly until certain issues are fixed.


 I don't understand. I fixed the one issue you identified to me that was
 impeding Tango on D2 (Bugzilla 1644, and 2204 is the same). What else is
 there?


 I wasn't aware that 2204 was a duplicate of 1644, and I guess Steven  
 wasn't
 either. If there are no further stumbling blocks, all are great :)
 Although, clearly, the better solution would be fixing Bugzilla 1961,  
 1644
 is only a workaround for that.


Too bad 2204 was marked as an acceptable solution :)
Aug 14 2008
prev sibling parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
"Lars Ivar Igesund" wrote

 Walter Bright wrote:


 Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:

 There isn't really a subset of Tango that can run on top of any Phobos
 runtime. The Tango runtime probably works fine with D2 without any major
 changes, it is the user library that is problematic. The work on the
 porting has begun in a branch in Tango's svn repository, but cannot be
 continued properly until certain issues are fixed.


 I don't understand. I fixed the one issue you identified to me that was
 impeding Tango on D2 (Bugzilla 1644, and 2204 is the same). What else is
 there?


 I wasn't aware that 2204 was a duplicate of 1644, and I guess Steven 
 wasn't
 either. If there are no further stumbling blocks, all are great :)
 Although, clearly, the better solution would be fixing Bugzilla 1961, 1644
 is only a workaround for that.


In fact, I wasn't aware.  2204 was a legitimate bug, which worked in D 
2.007.  1644 was an enhancement request, I didn't really consider it a bug, 
but it did not work in 2.007.  So I viewed them as separate issues.

Of course, it's entirely possible that in adding the 1644 enhancement, the 
2204 bug also got fixed.  I'll check it (haven't had a chance yet to try out 
the new D2).

I also would have preferred 1961, but I understand the preference for 1644 
as 1961 would be a huge feature change.  I still think 1961 is a worthwhile 
enhancement, but I don't think it blocks D2/Tango development at this time. 
I will check the status of these bugs soon.

The benefits of 1961:
Not a template solution.
Ability to not munge the caller's const contract.

-Steve
Aug 14 2008
parent "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
"Steven Schveighoffer" wrote

 In fact, I wasn't aware.  2204 was a legitimate bug, which worked in D 
 2.007.  1644 was an enhancement request, I didn't really consider it a 
 bug, but it did not work in 2.007.  So I viewed them as separate issues.

 Of course, it's entirely possible that in adding the 1644 enhancement, the 
 2204 bug also got fixed.  I'll check it (haven't had a chance yet to try 
 out the new D2).


Confirmed that both issues are fixed in 2.018, at least for the given test 
cases.

I'll work on trying to port the Tango branch again :)

-Steve
Aug 15 2008
prev sibling parent reply Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeiros+spam com.gmail> writes:
Sean Kelly wrote:

 == Quote from bearophile (bearophileHUGS lycos.com)'s article

 Sean Kelly:

 I would prefer that the old behavior the the default and that "new &fn"
 or something similar would be used for full closures.


 We have already discussed why this is negative, when practically possible in D
the default has to be


 the "safer" version (what "safer" is can be debated).
 
 It's just a matter of opinion, I suppose.  As D is a systems language, I don't
 agree with many arguments about safety when that safety conflicts with my
 ability to control what the language is doing behind the scenes.  Portability
 between versions is also an issue--code that is correctly designed for D 1.0
 may be unusable on D 2.0 because the default behavior for certain language
 features is different, although the syntax is still completely legal.  Also,
there
 isn't any way to easily grep for the use of delegates so finding such trouble
 spots requires a manual code review.
 


But does delegate usage cause that much erroneous outer variable heap 
allocation? (by erroneous, I mean in situations were it would not be 
necessary)
Or is the problem here that you are afraid that the developer might make 
a mistake were he would create a delegate that would capture an outer 
variable (and thus heap allocate it), but the developer would not notice it?

Would a semantic tool that detects delegate's outer variables (ie, the 
heap-allocated local variables) be useful? I think it wouldn't be too 
hard to create such functionality in Descent/Mmrnmhrm.

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - Software Developer, MSc. in CS/E graduate
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D
Aug 15 2008
parent reply Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
Bruno Medeiros wrote:

 Sean Kelly wrote:

 == Quote from bearophile (bearophileHUGS lycos.com)'s article

 Sean Kelly:

 I would prefer that the old behavior the the default and that "new &fn"
 or something similar would be used for full closures.


 We have already discussed why this is negative, when practically 
 possible in D the default has to be


 the "safer" version (what "safer" is can be debated).

 It's just a matter of opinion, I suppose.  As D is a systems language, 
 I don't
 agree with many arguments about safety when that safety conflicts with my
 ability to control what the language is doing behind the scenes.  
 Portability
 between versions is also an issue--code that is correctly designed for 
 D 1.0
 may be unusable on D 2.0 because the default behavior for certain 
 language
 features is different, although the syntax is still completely legal.  
 Also, there
 isn't any way to easily grep for the use of delegates so finding such 
 trouble
 spots requires a manual code review.


 
 But does delegate usage cause that much erroneous outer variable heap 
 allocation? (by erroneous, I mean in situations were it would not be 
 necessary)


 From what I've been told, it does.  But I haven't personally tested D 
2.0 enough to say.


 Or is the problem here that you are afraid that the developer might make 
 a mistake were he would create a delegate that would capture an outer 
 variable (and thus heap allocate it), but the developer would not notice 
 it?


No.  My issue is simply with performance guarantees.


 Would a semantic tool that detects delegate's outer variables (ie, the 
 heap-allocated local variables) be useful? I think it wouldn't be too 
 hard to create such functionality in Descent/Mmrnmhrm.


Not sure.  I'd have to look into how the compiler decides whether to 
heap allocate before saying.


Sean
Aug 15 2008
parent reply Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeiros+spam com.gmail> writes:
Sean Kelly wrote:

 Bruno Medeiros wrote:

 But does delegate usage cause that much erroneous outer variable heap 
 allocation? (by erroneous, I mean in situations were it would not be 
 necessary)


 
  From what I've been told, it does.  But I haven't personally tested D 
 2.0 enough to say.
 


Is there any bug report or code sample of such situation? I recall you 
mentioning this problem before, but I haven't seen any concrete example 
so far. (not saying there isn't ;) )


 Or is the problem here that you are afraid that the developer might 
 make a mistake were he would create a delegate that would capture an 
 outer variable (and thus heap allocate it), but the developer would 
 not notice it?


 
 No.  My issue is simply with performance guarantees.
 


Guarentees by the D spec itself?


-- 
Bruno Medeiros - Software Developer, MSc. in CS/E graduate
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D
Aug 18 2008
next sibling parent reply Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:
Bruno Medeiros wrote:


 Sean Kelly wrote:

 Bruno Medeiros wrote:

 But does delegate usage cause that much erroneous outer variable heap
 allocation? (by erroneous, I mean in situations were it would not be
 necessary)


 
  From what I've been told, it does.  But I haven't personally tested D
 2.0 enough to say.
 


 
 Is there any bug report or code sample of such situation? I recall you
 mentioning this problem before, but I haven't seen any concrete example
 so far. (not saying there isn't ;) )


I believe others have shown that it can disrupt normal running.

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango
Aug 18 2008
parent reply Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeiros+spam com.gmail> writes:
Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:

 Bruno Medeiros wrote:
 

 Sean Kelly wrote:

 Bruno Medeiros wrote:

 But does delegate usage cause that much erroneous outer variable heap
 allocation? (by erroneous, I mean in situations were it would not be
 necessary)


  From what I've been told, it does.  But I haven't personally tested D
 2.0 enough to say.


 Is there any bug report or code sample of such situation? I recall you
 mentioning this problem before, but I haven't seen any concrete example
 so far. (not saying there isn't ;) )


 
 I believe others have shown that it can disrupt normal running.
 


I was asking for a piece of code were the compiler would unnecessarily 
heap-allocate a local (and not a situation where doing so would botch up 
a program).
But in reading Frank Benoit's post in the full closure thread below, 
I've already seen one meanwhile. I didn't know the compiler 
heap-allocated a local in every situation where a local is used as an 
outer variable. That indeed puts a serious burden on the use of scoped 
closures :(

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - Software Developer, MSc. in CS/E graduate
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D
Aug 18 2008
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Bruno Medeiros wrote:

 But in reading Frank Benoit's post in the full closure thread below, 
 I've already seen one meanwhile. I didn't know the compiler 
 heap-allocated a local in every situation where a local is used as an 
 outer variable. That indeed puts a serious burden on the use of scoped 
 closures :(


It doesn't do it in every situation. It does it in a situation where a 
pointer is taken to a function that accesses it.
Aug 18 2008
parent Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeiros+spam com.gmail> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 Bruno Medeiros wrote:

 But in reading Frank Benoit's post in the full closure thread below, 
 I've already seen one meanwhile. I didn't know the compiler 
 heap-allocated a local in every situation where a local is used as an 
 outer variable. That indeed puts a serious burden on the use of scoped 
 closures :(


 
 It doesn't do it in every situation. It does it in a situation where a 
 pointer is taken to a function that accesses it.


Hum, that's right, I hadn't noticed. My previous comment was due to the 
fact that I was always experimenting with delegate literals. And 
unfortunately a delegate literal itself counts as "taking a pointer to a 
function", so any outer variable used in a delegate literal will be 
allocated. :/

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - Software Developer, MSc. in CS/E graduate
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D
Aug 25 2008
prev sibling parent Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
Bruno Medeiros wrote:

 Sean Kelly wrote:

 Bruno Medeiros wrote:

 But does delegate usage cause that much erroneous outer variable heap 
 allocation? (by erroneous, I mean in situations were it would not be 
 necessary)


  From what I've been told, it does.  But I haven't personally tested D 
 2.0 enough to say.


 
 Is there any bug report or code sample of such situation? I recall you 
 mentioning this problem before, but I haven't seen any concrete example 
 so far. (not saying there isn't ;) )
 

 Or is the problem here that you are afraid that the developer might 
 make a mistake were he would create a delegate that would capture an 
 outer variable (and thus heap allocate it), but the developer would 
 not notice it?


 No.  My issue is simply with performance guarantees.


 
 Guarentees by the D spec itself?


No, guarantees by Tango.  Like how the STL provides "big O" guarantees 
for its algorithms.


Sean
Aug 18 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Frank Benoit <keinfarbton googlemail.com> writes:
Sean Kelly schrieb:

 

 3.) the closures are not really closures. E.g. const variables can 
 change value. (Bug 2043)


 
 This one, at least, is clearly a bug.
 


I think this is not a bug in the compiler. Instead it shows the bug in 
the concept.

The concept is "simply allocate the whole stack frame on the heap". But 
it turns out to be not sufficient. Now what? Heap allocated each scope 
also? for every loop iteration?
Aug 11 2008
parent Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
== Quote from Frank Benoit (keinfarbton googlemail.com)'s article

 Sean Kelly schrieb:

 3.) the closures are not really closures. E.g. const variables can
 change value. (Bug 2043)


 This one, at least, is clearly a bug.


 I think this is not a bug in the compiler. Instead it shows the bug in
 the concept.
 The concept is "simply allocate the whole stack frame on the heap". But
 it turns out to be not sufficient. Now what? Heap allocated each scope
 also? for every loop iteration?


Yup.  It's essentially the same as heap allocating for the scope created by
a function call.  I imagine the hope is that compiler introspection would
be able to figure out when such allocations are necessary and when only
one would suffice.  Barring that, the programmer would need some way
of indicating this to the compiler, which is something we need anyway
as always heap allocating in a systems language renders delegates
unusable for certain classes of application.


Sean
Aug 11 2008
prev sibling parent "Koroskin Denis" <2korden gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:39:56 +0400, Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org>  
wrote:


 Frank Benoit wrote:

 Jarrett Billingsley schrieb:

 "Lars Ivar Igesund" <larsivar igesund.net> wrote in message  
 news:g7mboq$qcl$1 digitalmars.com...


 Also as long as closures are allocated on stack, that is likely to be  
 rather
 detrimental to the performance.


 Heap.

 That is another major blocker for me besides const.  Most of my code  
 uses nested functions that are never supposed to be closures, and this  
 "feature" would cause it all to unnecessarily allocate memory.


  i second that.
 It is an closure solution which was implemented too easy, imho.
  1.) it breaks the semantic of an existing syntax. So existing code can  
 be broken without any warning. (change in runtime behaviour)


 Yup.  Much like the change in meaning of "const," which I've admittedly  
 complained about perhaps overmuch.


 2.) there is still no alternative syntax to get the old behaviour


 I would prefer that the old behavior the the default and that "new &fn"  
 or something similar would be used for full closures.


If I understand the issue correctly, it's not a delegate itself that  
should be allocated on heap but rather a function context (i.e. local  
variables):

auto foo()
{
     int i = 0;

     int bar() {
         return ++i;
     }

     return &bar;
}

It's clear enough that i should be allocated on heap.

On the other side, there is a scope modifier, that doesn't allow returning  
of pointer to the attributed variable:

auto foo()
{
    scope Bar bar = new Bar();
    return bar;                  // illegal
}

So these variables should be allocated on stack in any case, even for  
delegates:

auto foo()
{
    scope Bar bar = new Bar();

    Bar foobar() {
       return bar;
    }

    doSomething(&foobar);	// legal (unless foobar is saved somewhere in  
global scope)
    return &foobar;              // illegal
}

Note that bar is a scoped variable and isn't supposed to be heap allocated.

So a solution would be to allow marking built-in type and struct instances  
as scope, too, and those variable won't be heap allocated.
The default one, however, would be non-scope, i.e. heap-allocated.

It fits perfectly with current semantics, it allows marking of some  
variables as heap- others as scope-allocated (flexibility), it doesn't  
introduce any new keywords or concepts.


 3.) the closures are not really closures. E.g. const variables can  
 change value. (Bug 2043)


 This one, at least, is clearly a bug.


 Sean
Aug 12 2008
prev sibling parent Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:


 "Lars Ivar Igesund" <larsivar igesund.net> wrote in message
 news:g7mboq$qcl$1 digitalmars.com...
 

 Also as long as closures are allocated on stack, that is likely to be
 rather
 detrimental to the performance.


 
 Heap.


Heap. Stack. Hack. Ehrm ... sorry ...

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango
Aug 10 2008
prev sibling parent reply "Koroskin Denis" <2korden gmail.com> writes:
On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 13:18:20 +0400, Lars Ivar Igesund  
<larsivar igesund.net> wrote:


 Nick B wrote:


 Sean

 So what is the plan to transition Tango to D2.0 ?

 Is the Tango team waiting for const to be removed from D2.0, or will
 Tango continue to use D1.0 forever, or is the team waiting to see the
 final form of D2.0 before deciding what to do ?


 We don't expect const to be removed :) As it is, this must be resolved
 before it is possible to properly port Tango:

 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2267

 1644 was fixed now, but is in our opinion the lesser solution to the
 problem - we'd much rather have 1961.

 2204 is still open I think.

 Also as long as closures are allocated on stack, that is likely to be  
 rather
 detrimental to the performance.

 Once we have a resolution on that, work on the Tango D 2.0 branch will
 probably continue, and this branch will be available to all who need it.  
 If
 possible, an official release may happen shortly after the time Walter
 calls D 2.0 to be stable.

 One other concern is that it is almost impossible to have code that is  
 both
 D1 and D2 compatible, something which mean the mantainance of two  
 branches,
 a potentially daunting task - it would be good if the "syntactical
 correctness" restriction on versioned out blocks could be removed for at
 least D1/D2 identifiers.


We need some other kind of `version' for this, I'm afraid. Something like  
this, maybe:

#version (StructInsteadOfClass)
    struct Foo {
#else
    class Foo {
#end
        void bar() {}
    }
Aug 11 2008
parent "Koroskin Denis" <2korden gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 20:03:29 +0400, Koroskin Denis <2korden gmail.com>  
wrote:


 On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 13:18:20 +0400, Lars Ivar Igesund  
 <larsivar igesund.net> wrote:


 Nick B wrote:


 Sean

 So what is the plan to transition Tango to D2.0 ?

 Is the Tango team waiting for const to be removed from D2.0, or will
 Tango continue to use D1.0 forever, or is the team waiting to see the
 final form of D2.0 before deciding what to do ?


 We don't expect const to be removed :) As it is, this must be resolved
 before it is possible to properly port Tango:

 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2267

 1644 was fixed now, but is in our opinion the lesser solution to the
 problem - we'd much rather have 1961.

 2204 is still open I think.

 Also as long as closures are allocated on stack, that is likely to be  
 rather
 detrimental to the performance.

 Once we have a resolution on that, work on the Tango D 2.0 branch will
 probably continue, and this branch will be available to all who need  
 it. If
 possible, an official release may happen shortly after the time Walter
 calls D 2.0 to be stable.

 One other concern is that it is almost impossible to have code that is  
 both
 D1 and D2 compatible, something which mean the mantainance of two  
 branches,
 a potentially daunting task - it would be good if the "syntactical
 correctness" restriction on versioned out blocks could be removed for at
 least D1/D2 identifiers.


 We need some other kind of `version' for this, I'm afraid. Something  
 like this, maybe:

 #version (StructInsteadOfClass)
     struct Foo {
 #else
     class Foo {
 #end
         void bar() {}
     }


I would also like to have something like this:

#if CompileTimeConfig.TargetOS == OS.MacOS &&  
CompileTimeConfig.TargetOSVersion >= 10_3_2
    // do something
#else
    // do something else
#endif

Note that it is exactly like static if (sameCondition) { } (i.e. it can  
benefit from CTFE etc), but allows wrong code in false clause.
Aug 11 2008
prev sibling parent PJP <pete.poulos gmail.com> writes:
Auria Wrote:


 Yes, and even if i know this has been discussed to death, i'll allow myself to
add i really dislike the direction D is taking. D's homepage states it is
driven by practical experience and not academical feats. Hasn't a solid
standard library been shown over time to be absolutely necessary for any
language to become popular and highly usable? It seems like D is taking the
direction of adding lots of sugar features, and misses basic practical
experience stuff. All that sugar is totally useless if D doesn't even have a
standard library upon which everything can be built


I'll second that.
Aug 10 2008