www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.announce - Re: Can we all please stop overreacting?

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




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.
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 next 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 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.



 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.



 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.



 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.



 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