Lest there is any doubt on this point, let me make it clear that I am *not* claiming ownership, either of the name "Deimos", or the package name "etc". I'm just using them. In fact, originally, I wasn't going to use either of those names, thinking they were Digital Mars things - but then Walter said it was the right thing to do. If it's right for me, it must be right for others, too.

As I see it, it's a place where all of us can put things. So far as I know, the only entry condition is adherence to the the design philosophy of Phobos (naming conventions, unittests, design-by-contract, etc.).

No, on second thoughts, there should be a second entry condition. Everything in Deimos must be open source and free software. (Well, I think so anyway).

So ... if you're designing something, and you're thinking to yourself "this really should be in Phobos" - then put it in Deimos. Probably /some/ management of the namespace is in order. (I wouldn't like to see Deimos filling up with silly functions to count the number of occurences of the letter M in the names of European politicians, for example). Somehow we're going to have to self-manage it.

So there should be no problem with this new Deimos co-existing with the Deimos Template Library, or anything else for that matter.


In article <c9ekjq$2b0n$1@digitaldaemon.com>, J C Calvarese says...
>
>Carlos Santander B. wrote:
>> "Brad Anderson" <brad@sankaty.dot.com> escribió en el mensaje
>> news:c9dvnu$1de9$1@digitaldaemon.com
>> | Jill,
>> |
>> | I haven't seen a request for a project yet, but if you're waiting, all I
>> | need is a name of the project.  Deimos?
>> |
>> | BA
>> 
>> I've meaning to say this for a couple of weeks now, but I was hoping someone else could point it out. Sometime ago Daniel Yokomiso (who seems to also have disappeared from here) wrote a library named Deimos Template Library. I don't even know if it compiles anymore, and I don't think it went beyond the first release, but I just thought it should be noted. You can check for it here http://www.minddrome.com/produtos/d/.
>> 
>> -----------------------
>> Carlos Santander Bernal
>
>I forgot this project was called Deimos Template Library. My memory abbreviated it to DTL. I think a cool name like Deimos should be used by an active library rather than by one that's been gathering dust.

"Arcane Jill" wrote...
>
> No, on second thoughts, there should be a second entry condition.
Everything in
> Deimos must be open source and free software. (Well, I think so anyway).
>
While I agree with the free software philosophy & believe, this second entry condition as by the definition of "free" software would mean people won't be able to create close source application using it. This of course, depending on your believe could be what you want but for the adoption of the language probably wouldn't work :-D

KTC
-- 
Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
    - Heinrich Heine

On Mon, 31 May 2004 13:57:58 +0100, KTC wrote:

> 
> "Arcane Jill" wrote...
>>
>> No, on second thoughts, there should be a second entry condition.
> Everything in
>> Deimos must be open source and free software. (Well, I think so anyway).
>>
> While I agree with the free software philosophy & believe, this second entry condition as by the definition of "free" software would mean people won't be able to create close source application using it. This of course, depending on your believe could be what you want but for the adoption of the language probably wouldn't work :-D
> 
> KTC

The ability to create closed-source apps from Free software depends entirely on the license. The FSF's definition of Free is met by many licenses that don't allow that (GPL, for example), but you can also use licenses that will allow closed source development (Such as the BSD license, or public domain).

I think it's important that the contrib library be free. It would be a bad thing for one of two main language libraries (Phobos and Deimos) to contain non-Free code.

Mike Swieton
__
Brutes find out where their talents lie; a bear will not attempt to fly.
	- Jonathan Swift

what we have there now is BSD license...
BSD license basically says "you can do whatever with this stuff, just keep my
name somewhere"   i.e. MS could take my BigRational class...package it in MS
word, change it so it delivered the wrong numbers, and use it to calculate
probabilities for the Paperclip to randomly snarf your document, and then blame
it on me ;-) keeping my name on the now-busted BigRational class ;-)

In article <c9fa4d$9cp$1@digitaldaemon.com>, KTC says...
>
>
>"Arcane Jill" wrote...
>>
>> No, on second thoughts, there should be a second entry condition.
>Everything in
>> Deimos must be open source and free software. (Well, I think so anyway).
>>
>While I agree with the free software philosophy & believe, this second entry condition as by the definition of "free" software would mean people won't be able to create close source application using it. This of course, depending on your believe could be what you want but for the adoption of the language probably wouldn't work :-D
>
>KTC
>-- 
>Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
>    - Heinrich Heine
>
>

I attempted to send you a mail as well, and it came back.

In any case, Deimos is set up at dsource.org.  If you would register in the Forums section, I will use that username to give you WRITE access to your Subversion repository.

You can email me at the above address, remove the .dot part

BA



Arcane Jill wrote:
> In article <c9dvnu$1de9$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Brad Anderson says...
> 
>>Jill,
>>
>>I haven't seen a request for a project yet, but if you're waiting, all I need is a name of the project.  Deimos?
>>
> 
> 
> Deimos, yes. Definitely.
> 
> You didn't get my email then? Ah well.
> 
> 

In article <c9h3uf$2q69$2@digitaldaemon.com>, Brad Anderson says...
>
>I attempted to send you a mail as well, and it came back.

Damn! Well, I suppose my email address must be working to some extent, judging by the amount of spam it receives!


>In any case, Deimos is set up at dsource.org.  If you would register in the Forums section, I will use that username to give you WRITE access to your Subversion repository.

Sounds good. I have done that now (using a different email address).



>You can email me at the above address, remove the .dot part

Will do in future. If this discussion needs to continue, we can do it off-list, but it looks like everything should be sorted now anyway.

Thanks
Arcane Jill

"Mike Swieton" wrote...
> The ability to create closed-source apps from Free software depends
entirely
> on the license. The FSF's definition of Free is met by many licenses that don't allow that (GPL, for example), but you can also use licenses that
will
> allow closed source development (Such as the BSD license, or public
domain).
>
> I think it's important that the contrib library be free. It would be a bad thing for one of two main language libraries (Phobos and Deimos) to
contain
> non-Free code.

Oh sure, I know about all the open source license like BSD that will allow
close source development, but those are open source license and not free (as
define by FSF) software license. ( I've recently been to a talk by Richard
Stallman... ;) )
      "The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to
the public,
       so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the
source code is a precondition for this."

Back to the issue of license for the library. Of course a open source license is a must, just not necessary a copyleft license...

-- 
Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
    - Heinrich Heine

In article <c9hkhe$i55$1@digitaldaemon.com>, KTC says...
>
>Oh sure, I know about all the open source license like BSD that will allow
>close source development, but those are open source license and not free (as
>define by FSF) software license. ( I've recently been to a talk by Richard
>Stallman... ;) )
>      "The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to
>the public,
>       so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the
>source code is a precondition for this."

Forgive me, I don't see the problem. I based my license on BSD. Apart from the
humorous (in my opinion) insertion of the phrase "Intellectual Property Me Arse"
(my statment!), it's BSD, pure and simple.

Does this not give people "The freedom to improve the program, and release [their] improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits"? I rather assumed that it DID give that them freedom.




>Back to the issue of license for the library. Of course a open source license is a must, just not necessary a copyleft license...

I've never been that good understanding licences. Please could you explain the difference? (I don't know what "copyleft" means either).

Thanks
Jill

"Arcane Jill" wrote...
>
> Forgive me, I don't see the problem. I based my license on BSD. Apart from
the
> humorous (in my opinion) insertion of the phrase "Intellectual Property Me
Arse"
> (my statment!), it's BSD, pure and simple.
>
> Does this not give people "The freedom to improve the program, and release [their] improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits"?
I
> rather assumed that it DID give that them freedom.
>
> I've never been that good understanding licences. Please could you explain
the
> difference? (I don't know what "copyleft" means either).
>

Okay, I'm probably not the best person at trying to explain things but I'll try anyway...

Both BSD & GPL is open source license in the sense that if you're releasing your software under either one of these license, you will be releasing your source code that people can access as well. However, the two license stand at opposite end of the scale. The main difference is what the license allow the people that use your code to do.

The free software / GPL / copyleft / FSF end is that if you ever redistrubate things base on the orginal code, then you MUST also make the source code availble as well. I.E. no one can add proprietary extension. (no one that use your code can restrict others (freedom) rights to see the code)

The MIT / BSD end is pretty much like placing your code in the public domain. Once someone gotten the code you orginial wrote, they can do what they want with it. They can sell it, add proprietary extension, whatever. The only difference to having it in public domain is that they have to retain your name saying you wrote the code (if they redistribute the codes) or just say you have copyright over some of the code that they're not letting other people see (because they closed the source).

So:
    BSD: open source but people can later close the source (clue x-windows).
    GPL: once open source, it will for ever stay that way.

"The BSD approach works best in some scenarios -- such as for reference implementations of standards aimed at maximum deployment. For instance, having a BSD-licensed implementation will likely boost its widespread adoption far better than a GPL-licensed implementation could, because developers can freely embed such code in existing (proprietary) software."

So for the case here, one probably want to use something like a BSD license unless of course you are fully in the camp of Stallman & FSF which believe in no use or development of proprietary software whatsoever (which of course has its merits but that's going way OT....)

KTC

p.s Yes I know I'm talking about the merits of free software but at the same time posting this in OE6. Don't go into that, that's a completely different story.....

-- 
Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
    - Heinrich Heine

> So:
>     BSD: open source but people can later close the source (clue
>     x-windows). GPL: once open source, it will for ever stay that way.
> 
> "The BSD approach works best in some scenarios -- such as for reference implementations of standards aimed at maximum deployment. For instance, having a BSD-licensed implementation will likely boost its widespread adoption far better than a GPL-licensed implementation could, because developers can freely embed such code in existing (proprietary) software."
> 
> So for the case here, one probably want to use something like a BSD license unless of course you are fully in the camp of Stallman & FSF which believe in no use or development of proprietary software whatsoever (which of course has its merits but that's going way OT....)

you are leaving out the very important LGPL "Lesser GPL" or "Library GPL" which allows for linking with closed source software but protects the source code.