www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.announce - No longer using/contributing to Tango

reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
I'm just writing this to let everyone know that I no longer intend to have  
any dealings with Tango.  If anyone wants to read the reason why, I have  
copied my post on the Phobos mailing list, sparked by Tango's insistence  
that SHOO's time library is stealing Tango's time code.  I advise anyone  
who wishes to contribute to Phobos, or who has commercial code that uses  
D, to consider the consequences that may occur from using Tango code:



 From: Ellery Newcomer <ellery-newcomer at utulsa.edu>




see the actual code, so all you have to do is read and understand the API,  
then you can make a similar API for Phobos.  It is how I created the time  


Tango is quite different since the source is available, and even present  
in the documentation (by clicking on a link, you can see the entire source  
file).  Therefore, Tango can claim at any point that you looked at their  
source, and therefore started your project by copying it.  To get around  
this, you have to not use or view Tango.  The Tango team's insistence on  
pursuing obviously non-infringing cases, and their broad interpretation of  
"viewing the code" is probably a good reason why companies will not use  
their code, even more than the BSD license.  Nobody wants to let a kid  
play in their yard when their parents have a history of suing when their  
kid gets hurt.

Having viewed source or online docs that can contain source isn't enough  
to prove copyright infringement.  However, Walter's position is that if  
you don't look at others' source, the opposition doesn't have a leg to  
stand on.  While this is true, *looking* at the other project's source  
does not mean you infringed on it.  In the time lib case, I believe SHOO  
is perfectly fine how he mimicked the Tango API (it's not exactly  
mimicked, but close enough that Tango devs think it's copying).  But  
Walter has his position, and will not bring the confrontation to a head,  
so those are the rules we have to live by.

Boost is acceptable to copy outright, because it has the same license.   
Tango is not.  If Tango changed it's license to boost (which I'm sad to  
say, I don't believe it ever will), then all this becomes moot, we just  
copy and paste the Tango copyright notice and call it a day.

Libraries where you cannot view the code are much easier to claim you  
didn't view the code, because you can't view it!

I pledge from now on to have no dealings with Tango, I will never download  
or view another piece of their documentation or source, as I intend to  
contribute to Phobos.  I will remove all Tango source from my computer.  I  
would contribute to both, but clearly the Tango team is not interested in  
being lenient on obviously non-infringing cases, so I respectfully must  
remove myself from that risk position.

And yeah, Lars, it is asinine.  We all want to follow the wishes of  
contributors, but give me a break!  The Tango.time library is not an  
amazing new algorithm.  There's practically only one way to write time  

brought forth any tangible evidence that Tango's time library was copied.   
You say that the doc generator isn't good enough to be able to do a  
clean-room implementation, but have you looked at Tango.time?  It's not  
that complex, and is pretty fully documented.  The doc generator does a  
good enough job to describe the API and functionality, I should know  
because *I documented it*.  Having rewritten most of Tango.time, I don't  
see anything so far that looks like it was copied.  I feel bad for SHOO  
that he was caught in the middle of this, his lib looks well written.


-Steve
Apr 30 2010
next sibling parent reply Daniel Keep <daniel.keep.lists gmail.com> writes:
Ok, let's clear some things up.



I am posting this because I can see this situation spinning out of
control and I just want everyone to stop trying to strangle each other.

Believe it or not, we're all (ostensibly) on the same side here.



I cannot find any indication that anyone representing Tango /ever/ said
"SHOO copied from us."

Based on what Kris has said in IRC [1] and from asking Lars, the intent,
if not the specific content, was this:

 "At casual examination, SHOO's code looks similar to Tango's."

There were no demands to block SHOO's code, no cries of theft.

Kris phoned Walter to let him know about there being a *potential*
issue.  This was a courtesy given that Walter has demonstrated extreme
caution when it comes to IP issues.  Kris could have posted it on the
newsgroup, but I suspect he didn't because he would have been flamed for
accusing SHOO of stealing.

It is also worth pointing out that if the case is simply that SHOO's
code has a similar API, then there is little reason to block the code.
If copyrighting an API was possible, the Wine and Mono projects would
have been burned to the ground and had the earth beneath them salted
years ago.

Nevermind the fact that Tango's time API is derived from Microsoft's in
.NET.  If Walter /had/ adopted SHOO's code, and it was similar to
Tango's, he's far more likely to have problems with Microsoft.



I've seen cries from several parties that Tango should just re-license
to Boost so that changes can be incorporated into Phobos.  I've also
seen a few accusations that the current situation was engineered to
prevent any code from being pulled into Phobos.

This is nonsense.  Firstly, keep in mind that Phobos wasn't always under
a single, unified license.  Bits of it were Public Domain, bits were
modified BSD.  Tango was started several years ago, and expecting them
to have anticipated Walter's move to Boost is simply unreasonable.

Second, Tango is the merging of two prior projects: Ares and Mango.
This is where Tango's original BSD+AFL license comes from.  The Tango
maintainers are legally required to honour their obligations to the
contributors of those projects.

Thirdly, the Tango maintainers have *ALREADY TRIED* to change Tango's
license.  They wanted to move to just Apache 2.0 on the basis that it
was similar enough to the AFL to allow this without too much trouble.

The problem was that of the 50-odd contributors, there are people who
they simply couldn't get in contact with.  Without express permission,
they *CANNOT* legally change the license to something incompatible.

Walter has suggested two things recently; one was that Tango simply be
relicensed as Boost.  As I've noted above, they just can't.

Walter also suggested that all new code be licensed under Boost.  The
maintainers do not want to go down this road because they have expended
considerable time and effort attempting to bring Tango down to a single
license.

Tango's current dual-license state has been cited as a pain point for
users.  My own personal experience is that I was very unsure for a very
long time how to legally make use of Tango. [2]

Licensing all new code under Boost would drive Tango straight back into
a situation the maintainers have been trying to get out of.  They're
also worried that any attempt to purge Tango of all code they can't get
relicensed would tie up the whole project for months while code was
carefully audited, rewritten, retested, redebugged, etc.

Let me also point out something that seems to be routinely ignored in
these arguments: there is nothing, *ABSOLUTELY NOTHING* which prevents
code being taken from Tango and then being incorporated into Phobos.  It
does not require other modules to be licensed any differently.  It
simply requires the attribution clause to be acknowledged.

This is unpalatable, I understand.  But this is no different to Walter's
suggestion that Tango be dual-licensed under both BSD and Boost.  Nor is
it different to finding some other library you want to include and
having to honour the licensing terms.

The upshot of all the above is that it's simply not practical at this
moment in time to change Tango's license.

-----

Now, could we all please stop with the personal attacks and demonisation
of the "other side"?  This isn't a war, for Pete's sake.

Some Tango devs noticed similarities between SHOO's code and Tango.
Kris phoned Walter privately to let him know and give him a chance to
either inspect the code himself or possibly ask SHOO to clarify whether
the code was based at all on Tango.

No demands, no threats.

As far as I can see, most of what's happened since then has been a
massive overreaction.

-----

In closing, I'd like to link directly to some of the threads in
question.  These all took place on the Phobos developers' list; until
yesterday, I had no idea this list even existed, so I'm adding these
links for others who may not have seen these posts.

gmane.comp.lang.d.phobos: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.d.phobos

Walter's post regarding Kris' call:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.d.phobos/335

(Again, I want to stress that, to my understanding, Kris did not tell
Walter that SHOO's code was "an infringement on [the Tango] license.")

Walter's subsequent post on the subject of licensing:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.d.phobos/358

Lars' post responding to the issue:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.d.phobos/359



[1] I'm using my recollection of events, here.  I was online at the
time, but my client doesn't log chats.

[2] For the record, I'm not a fan of the binary attribution clause.
Then again, neither is Lars.
Apr 30 2010
next sibling parent reply lurker <abc spamnet.com> writes:
So far I've been just lurking here, but these are my 5 cents.

I think the library situation is terrible. It's not for the good of D. We
should just simple ditch Tango. It's D 1.0 only and always causing trouble. We
absolutely need support from professionals and enterprises. D is growing fast.
The need for attribution is just intolerable, we need brown tongue attitude to
lure in the big money. Would a professional use BSD? I agree Boost has very
high quality and they might not even notice/care if we "steal" from them.

I totally agree with the convincing arguments I found from the mailing list:

"Now I'm glad I never looked at Tango. I don't empathize with the 
Tango fellows keeping their precious locked because it's very difficult 
to frame that action as having D's community interest at heart. To be 
frank their whole motivation looks petty and political to the extreme, 
particularly because it's not a rocket science library."

"I think for practical reasons we should simply stay away from Tango. 
We'd be wasting time otherwise. It's not like they discovered the cure 
for cancer."
Apr 30 2010
parent FeepingCreature <default_357-line yahoo.de> writes:
On 30.04.2010 15:46, lurker wrote:

 So far I've been just lurking here, but these are my 5 cents.
 
 I think the library situation is terrible. It's not for the good of D. We
should just simple ditch Tango. It's D 1.0 only and always causing trouble. We
absolutely need support from professionals and enterprises. D is growing fast.
The need for attribution is just intolerable, we need brown tongue attitude to
lure in the big money. Would a professional use BSD? I agree Boost has very
high quality and they might not even notice/care if we "steal" from them.
 
 I totally agree with the convincing arguments I found from the mailing list:
 
 "Now I'm glad I never looked at Tango. I don't empathize with the 
 Tango fellows keeping their precious locked because it's very difficult 
 to frame that action as having D's community interest at heart. To be 
 frank their whole motivation looks petty and political to the extreme, 
 particularly because it's not a rocket science library."
 
 "I think for practical reasons we should simply stay away from Tango. 
 We'd be wasting time otherwise. It's not like they discovered the cure 
 for cancer."


Would be nice if you'd actually refer to your parent post in, you know, _any_
way instead of rehashing the very arguments they debunked.

Phobos1 is shit. The Tango devs know this, the Phobos devs know it. Anyone who
denies it has never compared the Phobos and Tango sourcecode.

Your "simple" solution is never gonna happen. You're not freaking Alexander the
Great, cutting the Gordian Knot. The way D2 is going is the best solution for
both sides, imho; but _anything_ that prevents Tango/Phobos interop in D2, or
pushes away Tango devs, or pushes away Phobos devs - should be treated as a
*severe* threat to the future of the language. We *absolutely need* to present
a unified front in D2. We fucked this up once already; let's not repeat that
experience.

 --feep
Apr 30 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent reply lurker <abc spamnet.com> writes:
FeepingCreature Wrote:


 Phobos1 is shit. The Tango devs know this, the Phobos devs know it. Anyone who
denies it has never compared the Phobos and Tango sourcecode.


It's impossible to verify those claims because reading the Tango source might
taint one's mind and after that one wouldn't be allowed to contribute any code
to Phobos anymore.


 Your "simple" solution is never gonna happen. You're not freaking Alexander
the Great, cutting the Gordian Knot. The way D2 is going is the best solution
for both sides, imho; but _anything_ that prevents Tango/Phobos interop in D2,
or pushes away Tango devs, or pushes away Phobos devs - should be treated as a
*severe* threat to the future of the language. We *absolutely need* to present
a unified front in D2. We fucked this up once already; let's not repeat that
experience.


The Tango developers could have handed over all copyrights to Walter or Phobos.
This would solve the licensing problems if anything needs to change later. Many
open source projects such as MySQL do this.

Instead they yearned the attribution. Which one is more important, personal
fame or potential solid enterprise support? If the library isn't rocket science
or doesn't cure the cancer, what value does the attribution have then? The new
Phobos licensing is altruistic, it reflects the modest mentality of the
contributors.
Apr 30 2010
next sibling parent FeepingCreature <default_357-line yahoo.de> writes:
On 30.04.2010 16:04, lurker wrote:

 The Tango developers could have handed over all copyrights to Walter or
Phobos. This would solve the licensing problems if anything needs to change
later. Many open source projects such as MySQL do this.
 


They could have jumped off a bridge too. Yay, no more Tango. All problems
magically go away.

Well except the Tango devs' problems, but who cares about those.


 Instead they yearned the attribution.


Oh, because you always make perfect license choices on first try in a muddy
context, or alternately when it turns out you made the wrong choice, you can
always change the license without hassle! Because it's not like there's other
people who contributed code that you can't reach, that never happens.

Sometimes I forget you're a superhuman fantasy creature.
Apr 30 2010
prev sibling parent reply Daniel Keep <daniel.keep.lists gmail.com> writes:
lurker wrote:

 FeepingCreature Wrote:
 

 Phobos1 is shit. The Tango devs know this, the Phobos devs know it. Anyone who
denies it has never compared the Phobos and Tango sourcecode.


 
 It's impossible to verify those claims because reading the Tango source might
taint one's mind and after that one wouldn't be allowed to contribute any code
to Phobos anymore.


Well, there are other objective means.

This is a subjective statement: but as someone who has used D
extensively over the past several years, including both Phobos and
Tango, I honestly believe that Tango is generally of a higher quality.

Except for Tango's Zip code which is an abomination and should be killed
with fire--the original author is clearly a talentless hack.


 Your "simple" solution is never gonna happen. You're not freaking Alexander
the Great, cutting the Gordian Knot. The way D2 is going is the best solution
for both sides, imho; but _anything_ that prevents Tango/Phobos interop in D2,
or pushes away Tango devs, or pushes away Phobos devs - should be treated as a
*severe* threat to the future of the language. We *absolutely need* to present
a unified front in D2. We fucked this up once already; let's not repeat that
experience.


 
 The Tango developers could have handed over all copyrights to Walter or
Phobos. This would solve the licensing problems if anything needs to change
later.


I don't know how many times this has to be explained.

To quote myself:

"Thirdly, the Tango maintainers have *ALREADY TRIED* to change Tango's
license.  They wanted to move to just Apache 2.0 on the basis that it
was similar enough to the AFL to allow this without too much trouble.

"The problem was that of the 50-odd contributors, there are people who
they simply couldn't get in contact with.  Without express permission,
they *CANNOT* legally change the license to something incompatible."


 Many open source projects such as MySQL do this.


(Aside: I find it somewhat amusing that you're suggesting the Tango devs
should relinquish all claim on their work; the same thing the FSF asked
for in order to include the GDB patches.)


 Instead they yearned the attribution. Which one is more important, personal
fame or potential solid enterprise support? If the library isn't rocket science
or doesn't cure the cancer, what value does the attribution have then?


We've already established that this is a legal issue, not one of ego.
It'd be nice if you refrained from personal attacks.


 The new Phobos licensing is altruistic, it reflects the modest


mentality of the contributors.

The Boost license still requires source to contain attribution.

Lars commented in his post that he doesn't like the binary attribution
requirement.  But he's stuck with it because of the code's heritage.

As I tried very hard to explain, this is not about attempting to
sabotage D or Phobos or, for that matter, anyone or anything.

Please, PLEASE stop with the needless rhetoric and hate.
Apr 30 2010
next sibling parent FeepingCreature <default_357-line yahoo.de> writes:
On 30.04.2010 16:27, Daniel Keep wrote:

 
 
 lurker wrote:

 FeepingCreature Wrote:


 Phobos1 is shit. The Tango devs know this, the Phobos devs know it. Anyone who
denies it has never compared the Phobos and Tango sourcecode.


 It's impossible to verify those claims because reading the Tango source might
taint one's mind and after that one wouldn't be allowed to contribute any code
to Phobos anymore.


 
 Well, there are other objective means.
 
 This is a subjective statement: but as someone who has used D
 extensively over the past several years, including both Phobos and
 Tango, I honestly believe that Tango is generally of a higher quality.
 
 Except for Tango's Zip code which is an abomination and should be killed
 with fire--the original author is clearly a talentless hack.
 


I don't know the Tango zip code, but -- the Phobos zip code has/had a very
common bug where it causes/caused silent data loss. Beat that.
Apr 30 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent Lutger <lutger.blijdestijn gmail.com> writes:
Daniel Keep wrote:

...

 Except for Tango's Zip code which is an abomination and should be killed
 with fire--the original author is clearly a talentless hack.


Well, at least he has some character!

...

 
 As I tried very hard to explain, this is not about attempting to
 sabotage D or Phobos or, for that matter, anyone or anything.
 
 Please, PLEASE stop with the needless rhetoric and hate.


Yes please, thanks for your posts. The situation is rather unfortunate, 
tragic even. It doesn't need to get worse than that!
Apr 30 2010
prev sibling parent reply Don <nospam nospam.com> writes:
Daniel Keep wrote:

 
 lurker wrote:

 The Tango developers could have handed over all copyrights to Walter or
Phobos. This would solve the licensing problems if anything needs to change
later.


 
 I don't know how many times this has to be explained.
 
 To quote myself:
 
 "Thirdly, the Tango maintainers have *ALREADY TRIED* to change Tango's
 license.  They wanted to move to just Apache 2.0 on the basis that it
 was similar enough to the AFL to allow this without too much trouble.
 
 "The problem was that of the 50-odd contributors, there are people who
 they simply couldn't get in contact with.  Without express permission,
 they *CANNOT* legally change the license to something incompatible."


That's true, but largely irrelevant. Individual developers can make 
agreements about relicensing of their personal contributions, and 
stating that they're happy with their code being used in Phobos. Sean, 
Steven, and I did. AFAIK the other Tango developers have not. 
Everything's in version control, you can see who's contributed to which 
components. Sure, there'll be places where a dozen uncontactable people 
have been involved. But that shouldn't be an argument for making no 
progress.

It seems very clear to me that there are Tango developers who do not 
want any of their code to be used in Phobos. Which is fine, that's their 
choice. But I wish they'd have the decency to say so, so that the 
community stops wasting time on the issue.

I've tried for the past two years to make tiny steps towards unity. But 
Tango does not seem to be interested.

Please tell me I'm wrong.
Apr 30 2010
next sibling parent reply FeepingCreature <default_357-line yahoo.de> writes:
On 30.04.2010 17:10, Don wrote:

 It seems very clear to me that there are Tango developers who do not
 want any of their code to be used in Phobos. Which is fine, that's their
 choice. But I wish they'd have the decency to say so, so that the
 community stops wasting time on the issue.
 


So what you're saying is, you have this knowledge despite the relevant Tango
devs not actually saying anything in that direction.

Could you maybe explain how you came to that conclusion, please?
Apr 30 2010
parent Don <nospam nospam.com> writes:
FeepingCreature wrote:

 On 30.04.2010 17:10, Don wrote:

 It seems very clear to me that there are Tango developers who do not
 want any of their code to be used in Phobos. Which is fine, that's their
 choice. But I wish they'd have the decency to say so, so that the
 community stops wasting time on the issue.


 
 So what you're saying is, you have this knowledge despite the relevant Tango
devs not actually saying anything in that direction.


Yes. The silence is deafening.


 Could you maybe explain how you came to that conclusion, please?


Essentially, two years of trying to prove that it is false, and failing, 
despite heavy involvement in both Tango and Phobos. I have not come to 
that conclusion lightly.
Apr 30 2010
prev sibling parent reply Chris Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> writes:
== Quote from Don (nospam nospam.com)'s article

 That's true, but largely irrelevant. Individual developers can make
 agreements about relicensing of their personal contributions, and
 stating that they're happy with their code being used in Phobos.


Walter said, basically, that since it's possible that SHOO may have used
code from Tango, Tango devs should relicense their work. That's
insulting. It's admitting theft and demanding that the victim call it a
gift. If it were a policy, Walter would have a way of badgering us into
relicensing most of Tango against our will.

I'm not saying that SHOO copied any Tango code. Walter's reaction,
though, means I would never relicense any code for Phobos.
Apr 30 2010
next sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Chris Wright wrote:

 Walter said, basically, that since it's possible that SHOO may have used
 code from Tango, Tango devs should relicense their work.


Not exactly. To rephrase, I said that since SHOO has viewed Tango's source
code, 
there is the appearance of impropriety. Not that there actually is any 
impropriety. It's the appearance I wish to avoid. I am not accusing anyone of 
infringement, and have no basis to.

I have asked the Tango devs to relicense their work. I feel that if that can be 
accomplished, this would bury this issue once and for all, and the rift between 
the communities should heal.


 That's
 insulting. It's admitting theft and demanding that the victim call it a
 gift. If it were a policy, Walter would have a way of badgering us into
 relicensing most of Tango against our will.


I can't make you do anything you don't want to. I especially have no means, 
desire, or intention of forcing anyone to change their license or give up their 
copyrights.



 I'm not saying that SHOO copied any Tango code. Walter's reaction,
 though, means I would never relicense any code for Phobos.


I've repeatedly stated, and say so again, that I give explicit permission to 
Tango to incorporate any or all of code I have written for Phobos into Tango, 
and to relicense those derived works as necessary to be compatible with Tango. 
Tango's garbage collector is such a derived work, and I have no issue with it.

As for Phobos code I did not write, in order to relicense it, you'd have to get 
the permission of the author(s) of it, which is stated in each module. But it
is 
entirely unnecessary to relicense it - the Boost license allows you to use it 
any way you want to. The Boost license is not viral, it will not "infect" 
anything you hook it up to (neither does the BSD license - in fact, the only 
real difference between the BSD and Boost licenses is the binary attribution 
clause).
Apr 30 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Gurney Halleck <gurney.halleck dune.com> writes:
== Quote from Chris Wright (dhasenan gmail.com)'s article

 == Quote from Don (nospam nospam.com)'s article

 That's true, but largely irrelevant. Individual developers can make
 agreements about relicensing of their personal contributions, and
 stating that they're happy with their code being used in Phobos.


 Walter said, basically, that since it's possible that SHOO may have used
 code from Tango, Tango devs should relicense their work. That's
 insulting. It's admitting theft and demanding that the victim call it a
 gift. If it were a policy, Walter would have a way of badgering us into
 relicensing most of Tango against our will.
 I'm not saying that SHOO copied any Tango code. Walter's reaction,
 though, means I would never relicense any code for Phobos.


http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=chris+wright+site:tango.dsource.org

The loss is unbearable.


--
Gurney Halleck
Apr 30 2010
parent reply Chris Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> writes:
== Quote from Gurney Halleck (gurney.halleck dune.com)'s article

 The loss is unbearable.


Yes, all the code I've ever written or will write is in those two
modules. Sad, isn't it? I'm legally required to submit all my code to
a D standard library, and that's all I could accomplish.
Apr 30 2010
parent reply Gurney Halleck <gurney.halleck dune.com> writes:
== Quote from Chris Wright (dhasenan gmail.com)'s article

 == Quote from Gurney Halleck (gurney.halleck dune.com)'s article

 The loss is unbearable.


 Yes, all the code I've ever written or will write is in those two
 modules. Sad, isn't it? I'm legally required to submit all my code to
 a D standard library, and that's all I could accomplish.


Thank god your not authoring more. Your code is shit.

--
Gurney Halleck
Apr 30 2010
next sibling parent Chris Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> writes:
== Quote from Gurney Halleck (gurney.halleck dune.com)'s article

 Thank god your not authoring more.


God? Leto Atreides is over there -->
Apr 30 2010
prev sibling parent reply FeepingCreature <default_357-line yahoo.de> writes:
On 30.04.2010 20:26, Gurney Halleck wrote:

 == Quote from Chris Wright (dhasenan gmail.com)'s article

 == Quote from Gurney Halleck (gurney.halleck dune.com)'s article

 The loss is unbearable.


 Yes, all the code I've ever written or will write is in those two
 modules. Sad, isn't it? I'm legally required to submit all my code to
 a D standard library, and that's all I could accomplish.


 
 Thank god your not authoring more. Your code is shit.
 
 --
 Gurney Halleck


Oh come on. That's just off-topic.
Apr 30 2010
parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"FeepingCreature" <default_357-line yahoo.de> wrote in message 
news:hrfb5u$1bhb$1 digitalmars.com...

 On 30.04.2010 20:26, Gurney Halleck wrote:

 == Quote from Chris Wright (dhasenan gmail.com)'s article

 == Quote from Gurney Halleck (gurney.halleck dune.com)'s article

 The loss is unbearable.


 Yes, all the code I've ever written or will write is in those two
 modules. Sad, isn't it? I'm legally required to submit all my code to
 a D standard library, and that's all I could accomplish.


 Thank god your not authoring more. Your code is shit.

 --
 Gurney Halleck


 Oh come on. That's just off-topic.


Just ignore him. All of his posts have been trolling so far.
Apr 30 2010
prev sibling parent "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 11:36:02 -0400, Chris Wright <dhasenan gmail.com>  
wrote:


 == Quote from Don (nospam nospam.com)'s article

 That's true, but largely irrelevant. Individual developers can make
 agreements about relicensing of their personal contributions, and
 stating that they're happy with their code being used in Phobos.


 Walter said, basically, that since it's possible that SHOO may have used
 code from Tango, Tango devs should relicense their work. That's
 insulting. It's admitting theft and demanding that the victim call it a
 gift. If it were a policy, Walter would have a way of badgering us into
 relicensing most of Tango against our will.


This is completely false.  Walter did not say that.  He said that he will  
not participate in the transaction, even if such copying didn't occur,  
unless Tango says it's ok to copy that code.  It's like someone you don't  
know tries to give you $1000 and at the same time, your friend says that  
they might be missing $1000.  You tell the person giving you the money  
that since there is no way to prove that he did or didn't steal the money,  
your friend must say it's ok for you to accept it.

How is that any admission of guilt or theft?  How is that any kind of  
demand of your friend?  How does this do anything against anyone's will?   
All parties involved here are able to do whatever they want, Walter is  
just giving a set of conditions that he will accept.  No demands were made.

-Steve
Apr 30 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:14:24 -0400, Daniel Keep  
<daniel.keep.lists gmail.com> wrote:





Kris and Lars contacted me to ask about it, and I indicated that I had  
alleviated all my concerns that the code was not copied, after having  
examined his code against Tango's existing code, and getting his response  
on the NG.  In a statement, which Lars repeated in the mailing list  
(linked in your post), he indicated that it would be very hard to do a  
"clean room" implementation of Tango's code simply because the doc  
generator does not always capture every nuance of the API.  He also  
implied that only a clean room implementation was free of infringement  
when APIs are similar (paraphrasing, see exact quote linked in Daniel's  
post).  I don't know the timeline of when he sent the email to me and when  
they contacted Walter, but I'm assuming they received my position before  
contacting him.

To be fair, Walter is the one who blocked the code, and arguably, he could  
fix this situation by just accepting that the code does not infringe  
through reasonable logic.  But I understand both Tango's position and  
Walter's position.  I don't actually agree with either of them.  I just  
happen to think my best interests are served by contributing to the  
project which is least restrictive.  By doing this, my code can be used in  
Phobos and in Tango, as long as someone else ports it to Tango.


 Nevermind the fact that Tango's time API is derived from Microsoft's in
 .NET.  If Walter /had/ adopted SHOO's code, and it was similar to
 Tango's, he's far more likely to have problems with Microsoft.


Microsoft would have zero ground to stand on -- their code is not  
available to SHOO unless he signed an NDA.

Tango also copied almost wholesale their formatting style.  This is of the  
same type of "copying".  Copying ideas and design is done regularly, you  
cannot copyright ideas.



 Phobos.


I believe this as well, Tango is licensed the way it is because of the  
reasons you stated.  It's unfortunate that the license cannot be changed,  
I wish that could be different.


 Walter also suggested that all new code be licensed under Boost.  The
 maintainers do not want to go down this road because they have expended
 considerable time and effort attempting to bring Tango down to a single
 license.


There is another problem here.  In order to dual-license your code, you  
have to be the sole owner of it.  For example, someone (like myself)  
contributing improvements, even if almost completely rewrites, is still  
obligated to obey the license of the base code.  The time library falls  
into this category, I made massive modifications to the library, but my  
changes fall under the original license as a derivative work.  Until  
SHOO's code was deemed to be possibly infringing, I thought it would be  
feasible for me to re-implement Phobos' time in a similar manner to how  
SHOO did, using my experience with Tango's time code.  Now I see this will  
be unworkable (mostly because it's outside Walter's comfort zone).  As an  
example of free-and-clear code, Don's BigInt module is fine because he  
owns all parts of it.

I'll give you another example.  Dcollections was originally written to be  
a replacement for Tango's collection classes.  Although I wrote all the  
code from scratch, it bears vast similarities to Tangos' old collection  
package, because I did that intentionally.  When Tango declined to accept  
it as an improvement, I created a new project because I wanted to keep  
developing it.  I had hoped at some point it could be contributed to  
Phobos.  But now, I am concerned that Walter would reject it because of  
the hint of infringement.  I will still maintain the library separately,  
but the possibility that all my hard work is not usable how I see fit  
pisses me off to the point where I am just done with Tango.  Whose fault  
is it?  I don't care.

I wrote my post to make people aware of the possibility that I see, and  
the conclusions that I have reached, so they can make an informed decision  
of whether to use/contribute to Tango or not.  I'm leaving it up in the  
air as a possibility, so it's not perceived as an accusation.


 Some Tango devs noticed similarities between SHOO's code and Tango.
 Kris phoned Walter privately to let him know and give him a chance to
 either inspect the code himself or possibly ask SHOO to clarify whether
 the code was based at all on Tango.


SHOO has already clarified, in several posts to the NG.  I specifically  
asked him whether he used Tango as a base, and he said he did not.

At the same time, Tango devs could examine the code and say whether they  
think it infringes or not.


 As far as I can see, most of what's happened since then has been a
 massive overreaction.


Is it?  How about you write a really cool piece of code and then try to  
contribute it only to find that Tango or Walter has mild concerns about  
it's legitimacy.  How would you feel if Tango suggested you might have  
stolen their code?

-Steve
Apr 30 2010
parent reply Daniel Keep <daniel.keep.lists gmail.com> writes:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:14:24 -0400, Daniel Keep
 <daniel.keep.lists gmail.com> wrote:
 
 ...


To succinctly reply to the majority of your post: thanks for responding.  :)

I understand your position, and sympathise.  The whole situation is
ridiculous (not merely the current developments).  But with the
combination of Walter's fear of IP issues and Tango's licensing
situation, I suppose something like this was inevitable.

Personally, I just hope that there are enough bridges left standing
after this to get the mess sorted out.


 As far as I can see, most of what's happened since then has been a
 massive overreaction.


 
 Is it?  How about you write a really cool piece of code and then try to
 contribute it only to find that Tango or Walter has mild concerns about
 it's legitimacy.  How would you feel if Tango suggested you might have
 stolen their code?
 
 -Steve


I won't discuss the details, but I *have* been accused of ripping off
someone else's code.  It was particularly hurtful given that my code was
written entirely separately without ever having even used, let alone
seen, the other person's code.  The accusation was based, literally, on
the name of a single function.

And yeah, it really upset me to be called, more or less, of being a
cheat and a liar.

But I didn't copy from them, and I knew that the accusation was
baseless.  Rather than throw away my code, I double-checked that there
was nothing that could be reasonably seen to be copied and moved on.
Apr 30 2010
parent Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Daniel Keep wrote:

 I won't discuss the details, but I *have* been accused of ripping off
 someone else's code.


So have I, falsely, many times. Perhaps I am overly cautious about these
issues, 
but I feel compelled to be.

(I've also been on the other side, my game Empire was once described as the 
"most ripped-off game in history" <g>, with not only people making ripoff 
versions, but people actually deleting my name out of the source code and 
putting their own name in. Having a registered copyright of the source code 
saved the day on that one.)


 It was particularly hurtful given that my code was
 written entirely separately without ever having even used, let alone
 seen, the other person's code.  The accusation was based, literally, on
 the name of a single function.
 
 And yeah, it really upset me to be called, more or less, of being a
 cheat and a liar.


I totally am sympathetic to this. It is just as bad to be falsely accused as it 
is to have someone take what is yours.



 But I didn't copy from them, and I knew that the accusation was
 baseless.  Rather than throw away my code, I double-checked that there
 was nothing that could be reasonably seen to be copied and moved on.


One of the great things about svn is it provides a verifiable legal trail of
the 
evolution of the source code, so when and where bits of it came from can be 
documented if necessary.

Ironically, making things open source seems to greatly reduce the chances of 
code theft!
Apr 30 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 04/30/2010 08:14 AM, Daniel Keep wrote:



 I cannot find any indication that anyone representing Tango /ever/
 said "SHOO copied from us."

 Based on what Kris has said in IRC [1] and from asking Lars, the
 intent, if not the specific content, was this:

 "At casual examination, SHOO's code looks similar to Tango's."

 There were no demands to block SHOO's code, no cries of theft.

 Kris phoned Walter to let him know about there being a *potential*
 issue.  This was a courtesy given that Walter has demonstrated
 extreme caution when it comes to IP issues.  Kris could have posted
 it on the newsgroup, but I suspect he didn't because he would have
 been flamed for accusing SHOO of stealing.


I think, given the situation, that a phone call is bound to mean
something.


 Now, could we all please stop with the personal attacks and
 demonisation of the "other side"?  This isn't a war, for Pete's
 sake.


You're making the situation look symmetrical. It isn't.


Andrei
Apr 30 2010
next sibling parent reply FeepingCreature <default_357-line yahoo.de> writes:
On 30.04.2010 17:22, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 I think, given the situation, that a phone call is bound to mean
 something.


Well .. what does it mean? I mean, what do you mean it means. Not saying what
you mean is just mean.


 

 Now, could we all please stop with the personal attacks and
 demonisation of the "other side"?  This isn't a war, for Pete's
 sake.


 
 You're making the situation look symmetrical. It isn't.
 


It is, in fact, asymmetrical; but in two different directions. In my
experience, on average, Tango has higher quality of code whereas Phobos has
more support from Phobos developers. The quality-of-code metric seems to be
universally acknowledged - after all, druntime itself is a fork of tango core.
"We think you suck, so we'll base our new standard library on your work. " I am
starting to consider that accusations of arrogance contain a smitten of
projection, maybe.

 
 Andrei


 --feep
Apr 30 2010
next sibling parent Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 04/30/2010 10:28 AM, FeepingCreature wrote:

 On 30.04.2010 17:22, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 I think, given the situation, that a phone call is bound to mean
 something.


 Well .. what does it mean? I mean, what do you mean it means. Not
 saying what you mean is just mean.


 Now, could we all please stop with the personal attacks and
 demonisation of the "other side"?  This isn't a war, for Pete's
 sake.


 You're making the situation look symmetrical. It isn't.


 It is, in fact, asymmetrical; but in two different directions. In my
 experience, on average, Tango has higher quality of code whereas
 Phobos has more support from Phobos developers. The quality-of-code
 metric seems to be universally acknowledged - after all, druntime
 itself is a fork of tango core. "We think you suck, so we'll base our
 new standard library on your work. " I am starting to consider that
 accusations of arrogance contain a smitten of projection, maybe.


I wasn't referring to code quality.

Andrei
Apr 30 2010
prev sibling parent reply Don <nospam nospam.com> writes:
FeepingCreature wrote:

  The quality-of-code metric seems to be universally acknowledged - 
after all, druntime itself is a fork of tango core.

"We think you suck, so we'll base our new standard library on your work. "

You seem to be unaware of the history, and this may be leading you to 
misunderstand the situation.

Sean Kelly wrote Ares as a replacement for Phobos. Tango began as a 
merger of Ares with Mango. "Tango core" is Ares. Druntime is also Ares. 
The primary author has never changed, and it's an unbroken continuation 
of development on a single code base. Ditto with tango.math, (which was 
written by me, originally in a project called 'mathextra').
Apr 30 2010
next sibling parent reply another lurker <lurker lurk.urk> writes:
== Quote from Don (nospam nospam.com)'s article

 FeepingCreature wrote:
   The quality-of-code metric seems to be universally acknowledged -
 after all, druntime itself is a fork of tango core.
 "We think you suck, so we'll base our new standard library on your work. "
 You seem to be unaware of the history, and this may be leading you to
 misunderstand the situation.
 Sean Kelly wrote Ares as a replacement for Phobos. Tango began as a
 merger of Ares with Mango. "Tango core" is Ares. Druntime is also Ares.
 The primary author has never changed, and it's an unbroken continuation
 of development on a single code base. Ditto with tango.math, (which was
 written by me, originally in a project called 'mathextra').


Thank you Sean Kelly, Don and Steve Schveiguy for leaving Tango and coming to
Phobos. It means very much for everybody.
Apr 30 2010
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"another lurker" <lurker lurk.urk> wrote in message 
news:hrfcfi$1eaq$1 digitalmars.com...

 == Quote from Don (nospam nospam.com)'s article

 FeepingCreature wrote:
   The quality-of-code metric seems to be universally acknowledged -
 after all, druntime itself is a fork of tango core.
 "We think you suck, so we'll base our new standard library on your work. 
 "
 You seem to be unaware of the history, and this may be leading you to
 misunderstand the situation.
 Sean Kelly wrote Ares as a replacement for Phobos. Tango began as a
 merger of Ares with Mango. "Tango core" is Ares. Druntime is also Ares.
 The primary author has never changed, and it's an unbroken continuation
 of development on a single code base. Ditto with tango.math, (which was
 written by me, originally in a project called 'mathextra').


 Thank you Sean Kelly, Don and Steve Schveiguy for leaving Tango and coming 
 to
 Phobos. It means very much for everybody.


Don just said in the message you're replying to that they didn't leave 
Tango.
Apr 30 2010
parent reply Don <nospam nospam.com> writes:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 "another lurker" <lurker lurk.urk> wrote in message 
 news:hrfcfi$1eaq$1 digitalmars.com...

 == Quote from Don (nospam nospam.com)'s article

 FeepingCreature wrote:
   The quality-of-code metric seems to be universally acknowledged -
 after all, druntime itself is a fork of tango core.
 "We think you suck, so we'll base our new standard library on your work. 
 "
 You seem to be unaware of the history, and this may be leading you to
 misunderstand the situation.
 Sean Kelly wrote Ares as a replacement for Phobos. Tango began as a
 merger of Ares with Mango. "Tango core" is Ares. Druntime is also Ares.
 The primary author has never changed, and it's an unbroken continuation
 of development on a single code base. Ditto with tango.math, (which was
 written by me, originally in a project called 'mathextra').


 Thank you Sean Kelly, Don and Steve Schveiguy for leaving Tango and coming 
 to
 Phobos. It means very much for everybody.


 
 Don just said in the message you're replying to that they didn't leave 
 Tango. 


My most recent svn commit to Tango was only a month ago, so I still have 
a toe in both camps. But actually I've spent almost all of my time 
working on the compiler.
I have not yet decided on how I will respond to this situation.
Apr 30 2010
parent reply Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
Don <nospam nospam.com> wrote:

 Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 "another lurker" <lurker lurk.urk> wrote in message >
 news:hrfcfi$1eaq$1 digitalmars.com...

 == Quote from Don (nospam nospam.com)'s article

 FeepingCreature wrote:
   The quality-of-code metric seems to be universally acknowledged
 -
 after all, druntime itself is a fork of tango core.
 "We think you suck, so we'll base our new standard library on your
 work. >>> "
 You seem to be unaware of the history, and this may be leading you
 to
 misunderstand the situation.
 Sean Kelly wrote Ares as a replacement for Phobos. Tango began as
 a
 merger of Ares with Mango. "Tango core" is Ares. Druntime is also
 Ares.
 The primary author has never changed, and it's an unbroken
 continuation
 of development on a single code base. Ditto with tango.math,
 (which was
 written by me, originally in a project called 'mathextra').


 Thank you Sean Kelly, Don and Steve Schveiguy for leaving Tango and
 coming >> to
 Phobos. It means very much for everybody.
 Don just said in the message you're replying to that they didn't
 leave > Tango. 




 My most recent svn commit to Tango was only a month ago, so I still
 have a toe in both camps. But actually I've spent almost all of my
 time working on the compiler.
 I have not yet decided on how I will respond to this situation.


I don't know whether it's relevant, but I haven't even looked at Tango
code (other than my own modules) since Druntime was created.  Regardless
of any personal reasons, I simply don't have the time to support more
than one project.

Regrding this latest bit of drama, I have to say that I'm coming to
regret my decision to help start Tango.  It was a great opportunity to
do some work that interested me, but the cost to the community has been
too high.  I sincerely hope that people get over whatever issues they
have and simply focus on making D a better language.
May 03 2010
parent reply Gurney Halleck <gurney.halleck dune.com> writes:
== Quote from Sean Kelly (sean invisibleduck.org)'s article

 Don <nospam nospam.com> wrote:

 Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 "another lurker" <lurker lurk.urk> wrote in message >
 news:hrfcfi$1eaq$1 digitalmars.com...

 == Quote from Don (nospam nospam.com)'s article

 FeepingCreature wrote:
   The quality-of-code metric seems to be universally acknowledged
 -
 after all, druntime itself is a fork of tango core.
 "We think you suck, so we'll base our new standard library on your
 work. >>> "
 You seem to be unaware of the history, and this may be leading you
 to
 misunderstand the situation.
 Sean Kelly wrote Ares as a replacement for Phobos. Tango began as
 a
 merger of Ares with Mango. "Tango core" is Ares. Druntime is also
 Ares.
 The primary author has never changed, and it's an unbroken
 continuation
 of development on a single code base. Ditto with tango.math,
 (which was
 written by me, originally in a project called 'mathextra').


 Thank you Sean Kelly, Don and Steve Schveiguy for leaving Tango and
 coming >> to
 Phobos. It means very much for everybody.
 Don just said in the message you're replying to that they didn't
 leave > Tango.




 My most recent svn commit to Tango was only a month ago, so I still
 have a toe in both camps. But actually I've spent almost all of my
 time working on the compiler.
 I have not yet decided on how I will respond to this situation.


 I don't know whether it's relevant, but I haven't even looked at Tango
 code (other than my own modules) since Druntime was created.  Regardless
 of any personal reasons, I simply don't have the time to support more
 than one project.
 Regrding this latest bit of drama, I have to say that I'm coming to
 regret my decision to help start Tango.  It was a great opportunity to
 do some work that interested me, but the cost to the community has been
 too high.  I sincerely hope that people get over whatever issues they
 have and simply focus on making D a better language.


I appreciate your decision to leave that wasp nest and join Phobos.

--
Gurney Halleck
May 03 2010
parent Charles Hixson <charleshixsn earthlink.net> writes:
On 05/03/2010 11:51 PM, Gurney Halleck wrote:

 == Quote from Sean Kelly (sean invisibleduck.org)'s article

 Don<nospam nospam.com>  wrote:

 Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 "another lurker"<lurker lurk.urk>  wrote in message>
 news:hrfcfi$1eaq$1 digitalmars.com...

 == Quote from Don (nospam nospam.com)'s article

 FeepingCreature wrote:
  ...










 I appreciate your decision to leave that wasp nest and join Phobos.

 --
 Gurney Halleck


It doesn't really help to disparage the other people.  I know that lots 
of strong emotions have been raised here, but use them to support the 
cause you favor, not to tear down the other side.  It yields a much 
healthier community.
May 05 2010
prev sibling parent FeepingCreature <default_357-line yahoo.de> writes:
On 30.04.2010 21:25, Don wrote:

 FeepingCreature wrote:
 
  The quality-of-code metric seems to be universally acknowledged - after
 all, druntime itself is a fork of tango core.
 
 "We think you suck, so we'll base our new standard library on your work. "
 
 You seem to be unaware of the history, and this may be leading you to
 misunderstand the situation.
 
 Sean Kelly wrote Ares as a replacement for Phobos. Tango began as a
 merger of Ares with Mango. "Tango core" is Ares. Druntime is also Ares.
 The primary author has never changed, and it's an unbroken continuation
 of development on a single code base. Ditto with tango.math, (which was
 written by me, originally in a project called 'mathextra').


Oh, that explains the kerfluffle a bit better. Thanks. :)
May 01 2010
prev sibling parent reply retard <re tard.com.invalid> writes:
Fri, 30 Apr 2010 10:22:59 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:


 

 Now, could we all please stop with the personal attacks and
 demonisation of the "other side"?  This isn't a war, for Pete's sake.


 
 You're making the situation look symmetrical. It isn't.


No, you're right. There's only one person who's insolently dismissing the 
quality and efforts of other's work and blatantly advertising his own 
GODDAMN precious work in the same post. I believe the license issues were 
enough to justify a reimplementation, you're doing nothing but harm by 
feeding the flame war.
Apr 30 2010
parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 04/30/2010 10:46 AM, retard wrote:

 Fri, 30 Apr 2010 10:22:59 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:


 Now, could we all please stop with the personal attacks and
 demonisation of the "other side"?  This isn't a war, for Pete's sake.


 You're making the situation look symmetrical. It isn't.


 No, you're right. There's only one person who's insolently dismissing the
 quality and efforts of other's work and blatantly advertising his own
 GODDAMN precious work in the same post.


Who is that? (Honest question.)


 I believe the license issues were
 enough to justify a reimplementation, you're doing nothing but harm by
 feeding the flame war.


I agree.


Andrei
Apr 30 2010
next sibling parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote in message 
news:hreuei$bka$1 digitalmars.com...

 On 04/30/2010 10:46 AM, retard wrote:

 Fri, 30 Apr 2010 10:22:59 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:


 Now, could we all please stop with the personal attacks and
 demonisation of the "other side"?  This isn't a war, for Pete's sake.


 You're making the situation look symmetrical. It isn't.


 No, you're right. There's only one person who's insolently dismissing the
 quality and efforts of other's work and blatantly advertising his own
 GODDAMN precious work in the same post.


 Who is that? (Honest question.)


FWIW, I'm unclear on that too.
Apr 30 2010
prev sibling parent reply traveling mirror salesman <mirrors forsale.com> writes:
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:


 On 04/30/2010 10:46 AM, retard wrote:

 Fri, 30 Apr 2010 10:22:59 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:


 Now, could we all please stop with the personal attacks and
 demonisation of the "other side"?  This isn't a war, for Pete's sake.


 You're making the situation look symmetrical. It isn't.


 No, you're right. There's only one person who's insolently dismissing the
 quality and efforts of other's work and blatantly advertising his own
 GODDAMN precious work in the same post.


 
 Who is that? (Honest question.)


Allow me to introduce the very modest myself. I'm N=NP?, a travelling mirror
salesman, dear effendi.

This is the luckiest day in my life since I may have the honor to offer You my
best goods. The mirrors I sell are of the finest quality, definitely not
iterating snake oil. They help your std.algorithm become non-petty rocket
science and even have practical applications like curing cancer. No need to
worry about your ego, it will make it HUGE as we can all see from the picture.
You also don't need to spread FUD anymore to send competitors away. They surely
realize now that the lawn isn't large enough for the both of you.
Apr 30 2010
parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 04/30/2010 02:01 PM, traveling mirror salesman wrote:

 Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:


 On 04/30/2010 10:46 AM, retard wrote:

 Fri, 30 Apr 2010 10:22:59 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:


 Now, could we all please stop with the personal attacks and
 demonisation of the "other side"?  This isn't a war, for Pete's sake.


 You're making the situation look symmetrical. It isn't.


 No, you're right. There's only one person who's insolently dismissing the
 quality and efforts of other's work and blatantly advertising his own
 GODDAMN precious work in the same post.


 Who is that? (Honest question.)


 Allow me to introduce the very modest myself. I'm N=NP?, a travelling mirror
salesman, dear effendi.

 This is the luckiest day in my life since I may have the honor to offer You my
best goods. The mirrors I sell are of the finest quality, definitely not
iterating snake oil. They help your std.algorithm become non-petty rocket
science and even have practical applications like curing cancer. No need to
worry about your ego, it will make it HUGE as we can all see from the picture.
You also don't need to spread FUD anymore to send competitors away. They surely
realize now that the lawn isn't large enough for the both of you.


Funny :o). (Let me clarify that std.algorithm is under the Boost License 
lest that aspect gets forgotten in the discussion.)

Now, that is a honest question, though clearly Walter and I are prime 
suspects of the sniping. First, I am careful with giving credit where 
credit is due, so if I failed to do so, I'd definitely want to correct 
course. Second, I recall a similar accusation (I'm not sure whether it 
was coming from 'retard' or someone else) about an arrogant language 
designer on this newsgroup who has barely read the Wikipedia article 
about algebraic data types. Again it is reasonable to infer that Walter 
or I (though I don't consider myself a language designer) were the 
primary targets of that one too, but I failed to recognize my own 
actions - so in brief I want to make sure what the state of affairs is.


Andrei
Apr 30 2010
parent Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 Second, I recall a similar accusation (I'm not sure whether it 
 was coming from 'retard' or someone else) about an arrogant [...]


Probably meaning me <g>.
Apr 30 2010
prev sibling parent Eldar Insafutdinov <e.insafutdinov gmail.com> writes:
Daniel Keep Wrote:


  ... skipped


How is that an overreaction? I entirely understand Steve. He did some work and
now because of the licensing crap another person isn't allowed even to be
inspired by Steve's code, although he doesn't mind it at all. That's why he is
frustrated and reluctant to deal with Tango, because it leads to complications
like we currently have, where someone can't use his own code(Yes I know that
there are 4 people more and I don't know how much each other contributed, but
Steve did a major rewrite). And there is nothing personal here.

Because of the licenses, code from Phobos can go to Tango, but not the other
way round. That is not fair and very unfortunate, as people are loosing time
reinventing the same wheel and participating in these useless discussions.

Steve(being involved in writing of tango.Time) confirmed that there wasn't any
copying of the code. SHOO only implemented the same interfaces (not even
retaining source compatibility). So why even bother?
Apr 30 2010
prev sibling parent reply Moritz Warning <moritzwarning web.de> writes:
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 07:45:23 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:


 I feel bad for
 SHOO that he was caught in the middle of this, his lib looks well
 written.


Phobos and Tangos license are both chosen to be for the greatest benefit 
to it's users.
That they may differ is no contradiction, the sentient is the same.

I feel that the issue is getting ridiculous as nobody wants to block 
anyone. We want to help each other coding, getting stuff done and help to 
get around license issue because they suck.
Apr 30 2010
parent FeepingCreature <default_357-line yahoo.de> writes:
On 30.04.2010 16:20, Moritz Warning wrote:

 On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 07:45:23 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 

 I feel bad for
 SHOO that he was caught in the middle of this, his lib looks well
 written.


 Phobos and Tangos license are both chosen to be for the greatest benefit 
 to it's users.
 That they may differ is no contradiction, the sentient is the same.
 
 I feel that the issue is getting ridiculous as nobody wants to block 
 anyone. We want to help each other coding, getting stuff done and help to 
 get around license issue because they suck.


Preach it. Everyone needs to remember this.
Apr 30 2010