retard wrote:

> Sat, 12 Dec 2009 17:44:34 +0000, dsimcha wrote:
> 
>> == Quote from retard (re@tard.com.invalid)'s article
>>> Sat, 12 Dec 2009 11:53:50 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> > Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
>>> >> Right now we are working on a next QtD version. We dropped support for D1, it is D2 only. I believe Qt suits all your requirements very well. It's performant - we try to emulate as many C++ types using D structs as possible, for drawing purposes. So types like QPoint - are D structs and for drawing lines you can pass D array directly. No perfromance hit. But of course we cannot avoid all of them, it is still a binding. Regarding the license, Qt itself is LGPLed, QtD is boost. you don't have to put any attribution. About stability of APIs - Qt4 is stable within the major version. At the moment we are working on signals/slots implementation. It is mostly complete, but syntax may change. It will hopefully change once and stay forever.
>>> >>
>>> >> I would say that QtD is in the state close to that of D2, almost there, but not quite ready yet. But we intend to release the next version, which will be ready to use earlier than D2 anyway, I would say within a month.
>>> >
>>> > I salute the decision of going with D2, as well as that of using the Boost license. If there is anything in the language that prevents you from getting things done, please let us know. The availability of QtD concurrently with that of D2 will hopefully push both forward.
>>> I don't get why Boost license should be used. It's just confusing to have yet another free for all license as it basically promises the same things as the 2-clause BSD or MIT license. The only difference I see is that the author of a Boost licensed software publicly admits that he is a Boost fanboy and thinks the license somehow got better after his personal deities rewrote it from scratch with NIH mentality.
>> 
>> Because the Boost license doesn't require attribution for works only distributed in binary form.
> 
> Isn't that kind of insulting towards the original author -- "Your work wasn't worth a crap. I'll take full credit. You get nothing, community gets nothing." Encouraging this kind of licenses seems really weird. Ah yes, zlib was also mentioned - so does one get any advantages when converting an existing D project from zlib/libpng license to boost license?

Some corporations won't use licenses which require attribution (and even will rather pay for code instead), so they will automatically drop D as a language if such a license is adopted.

If you want to know more about the boost license, this page has the background on it including the rationale and history: http://www.boost.org/users/license.html

On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 07:53:20PM +0100, BLS wrote:
> If you don't care : make it public domain.

I argued this with my boss once. He said public domain is unacceptable to him because:

a) It doesn't disclaim liability; if your public domain thing screws up, you
   can, in theory anyway, be sued into oblivion over it.

and b) Some countries don't recognize public domain.

The zlib license addresses both these, while keeping the rest of the "do whatever" attitude, so that's what he insists on for this kind of thing.

-- 
Adam D. Ruppe
http://arsdnet.net

On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 06:40:49PM +0000, retard wrote:
> > Because the Boost license doesn't require attribution for works only distributed in binary form.
> 
> Isn't that kind of insulting towards the original author -- "Your work wasn't worth a crap.

I look at it the opposite way: the BSD license is insulting to its users. "Your wishes aren't worth a crap, you MUST stroke my ego."


-- 
Adam D. Ruppe
http://arsdnet.net

"BLS" <windevguy@hotmail.de> wrote in message news:hg0or1$2rtu$1@digitalmars.com...
> On 12/12/2009 18:44, dsimcha wrote:
>> Because the Boost license doesn't require attribution for works only
>> distributed
>> in binary form.
>
> All these kitchen sink license issues are monkey buisiness. If you don't care : make it public domain.

I'm really tired of public domain constantly being tossed around as if it were actually a reasonable option:

1. If you put someting in PD, you're no longer legally allowed to claim that you actually wrote it (leave it to a government to try to redefine reality like that...). In other words, you're not allowed to state an actual fact about it.

2. Different countries define public domain differently, some countries don't define it, and others don't even have a concept of public domain at all.

Adam also said there's a liability issue, but (IANAL) that would surprise me because AIUI, public domain is all about severing *all* ties between an author and their work. But then again, that's probably just one of those things that differs by country.

The thing about zlib (or something like beerware) is that it's basically a version of public domain that *isn't* total crap.

> if you want to share : make it GPL 3

That's just BS. It's more like this:

If you want to share *only* with people who, #1 also want to share everything they do with it, *and* #2 don't mind dealing with a fifty-foot wall of legalese gibberish that's completely impenetrable without shelling out bucks for a lawyer that'll probably cost them more than if you had just charged a basic fee in the first place: Make it GPL.

If you *just simply want to share*: Make it zlib, or maybe beerware or something like that.

> if you want to make money : make it close source.
> period.
> 

On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 03:14:18PM -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> Adam also said there's a liability issue, but (IANAL) that would surprise me because AIUI, public domain is all about severing *all* ties between an author and their work. But then again, that's probably just one of those things that differs by country.

Neither myself nor my boss are lawyers either, so this might not be completely
accurate, but the worry he explained was if you provide something, there is
an automatic warranty on it: you are implicitly saying that it is fit for
the purpose you are providing it for and taking responsibility for safety
issues associated with it.

The big ALL CAPS paragraph in most licenses specifically disclaims this, whereas offering something that is public domain doesn't, so the assumption is that the implicit warranty from distributing it is still there.


-- 
Adam D. Ruppe
http://arsdnet.net

Sat, 12 Dec 2009 15:14:18 -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

> "BLS" <windevguy@hotmail.de> wrote in message news:hg0or1$2rtu$1@digitalmars.com...
>> On 12/12/2009 18:44, dsimcha wrote:
>>> Because the Boost license doesn't require attribution for works only
>>> distributed
>>> in binary form.
>>
>> All these kitchen sink license issues are monkey buisiness. If you don't care : make it public domain.
> 
> I'm really tired of public domain constantly being tossed around as if it were actually a reasonable option:
> 
> 1. If you put someting in PD, you're no longer legally allowed to claim that you actually wrote it (leave it to a government to try to redefine reality like that...). In other words, you're not allowed to state an actual fact about it.
> 
> 2. Different countries define public domain differently, some countries don't define it, and others don't even have a concept of public domain at all.
> 
> Adam also said there's a liability issue, but (IANAL) that would surprise me because AIUI, public domain is all about severing *all* ties between an author and their work. But then again, that's probably just one of those things that differs by country.
> 
> The thing about zlib (or something like beerware) is that it's basically a version of public domain that *isn't* total crap.
> 
>> if you want to share : make it GPL 3
> 
> That's just BS. It's more like this:
> 
> If you want to share *only* with people who, #1 also want to share everything they do with it, *and* #2 don't mind dealing with a fifty-foot wall of legalese gibberish that's completely impenetrable without shelling out bucks for a lawyer that'll probably cost them more than if you had just charged a basic fee in the first place: Make it GPL.

FWIW, I think the longest license conditions usually come with proprietary applications. Sometimes I'm not even sure if I'm allowed to use the software I just payed for.  IIRC if you use e.g. microsoft messenger, you have to defend them in court if they insist. If you trust the FSF and GPL, using it isn't that big a deal. Some IDEs even have plugins that add the license text to all source files. Tagging a 10000 file project takes less than a second. In addition to that, just provide a COPYING file with the distribution package.

> 
> If you *just simply want to share*: Make it zlib, or maybe beerware or something like that.

It's silly so say that those are the only alternatives. If I plan to use GPL or BSD, it's my personal choice and there's nothing you can do. The desire to share with everyone is like sharing your genitals with every (possibly HIV carrying person) person on earth. Sometimes it's a good idea, sometimes it isn't.

On 12/12/2009 21:14, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "BLS"<windevguy@hotmail.de>  wrote in message
> news:hg0or1$2rtu$1@digitalmars.com...
>> On 12/12/2009 18:44, dsimcha wrote:
>>> Because the Boost license doesn't require attribution for works only
>>> distributed
>>> in binary form.
>>
>> All these kitchen sink license issues are monkey buisiness.
>> If you don't care : make it public domain.
>
> I'm really tired of public domain constantly being tossed around as if it
> were actually a reasonable option:
>
> 1. If you put someting in PD, you're no longer legally allowed to claim that
> you actually wrote it (leave it to a government to try to redefine reality
> like that...). In other words, you're not allowed to state an actual fact
> about it.
>
> 2. Different countries define public domain differently, some countries
> don't define it, and others don't even have a concept of public domain at
> all.
>
All True.
That's why I wrote : "If you don't care.."

> Adam also said there's a liability issue, but (IANAL) that would surprise me
> because AIUI, public domain is all about severing *all* ties between an
> author and their work. But then again, that's probably just one of those
> things that differs by country.
>

Bureaucrat nonsense. or in my words : fuck the duck.  even if this is true , who cares ?
Do you think you will find a lawyer who is willing to kick an ass because he/she is giving away an intellectual property / programming pearl,he/she invented, for free ?

anyway, it seems to me that we have a lot of semi professional lawyers on board and I am not sure how much this helps. ( A professional one is already a disaster...)
KISS, Bjoern

== Quote from BLS (windevguy@hotmail.de)'s article
> >
> Bureaucrat nonsense. or in my words : fuck the duck.  even if this is
> true , who cares ?
> Do you think you will find a lawyer who is willing to kick an ass
> because he/she is giving away an intellectual property / programming
> pearl,he/she invented, for free ?
> anyway, it seems to me that we have a lot of semi professional lawyers
> on board and I am not sure how much this helps. ( A professional one is
> already a disaster...)
> KISS, Bjoern

Well, I was going to compare lawyers to whores, but that would be an insult to the whore profession.

"retard" <re@tard.com.invalid> wrote in message news:hg0keb$2iq2$1@digitalmars.com...
> Sat, 12 Dec 2009 11:53:50 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>
>> Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
>>> Right now we are working on a next QtD version. We dropped support for D1, it is D2 only. I believe Qt suits all your requirements very well. It's performant - we try to emulate as many C++ types using D structs as possible, for drawing purposes. So types like QPoint - are D structs and for drawing lines you can pass D array directly. No perfromance hit. But of course we cannot avoid all of them, it is still a binding. Regarding the license, Qt itself is LGPLed, QtD is boost. you don't have to put any attribution. About stability of APIs - Qt4 is stable within the major version. At the moment we are working on signals/slots implementation. It is mostly complete, but syntax may change. It will hopefully change once and stay forever.
>>>
>>> I would say that QtD is in the state close to that of D2, almost there, but not quite ready yet. But we intend to release the next version, which will be ready to use earlier than D2 anyway, I would say within a month.
>>
>> I salute the decision of going with D2, as well as that of using the Boost license. If there is anything in the language that prevents you from getting things done, please let us know. The availability of QtD concurrently with that of D2 will hopefully push both forward.
>
> I don't get why Boost license should be used. It's just confusing to have yet another free for all license as it basically promises the same things as the 2-clause BSD or MIT license. The only difference I see is that the author of a Boost licensed software publicly admits that he is a Boost fanboy and thinks the license somehow got better after his personal deities rewrote it from scratch with NIH mentality.

Speaking purely (and proudly) as a non-lawyer: For being only three paragraphs long, the Boost license is amazingly obtuse. The first two paragraphs are made up of one full-paragraph-sized sentence each, and in a style that's the written-word equivilent of constipation (kinda like how my dad explains things: keeps talking and yet somehow never gets to the ^&**& point.) Then the third paragraph, of course, is every laywer's big stiffy: the ALL CAPS paragraph.

On 12/12/2009 23:44, dsimcha wrote:
> Well, I was going to compare lawyers to whores, but that would be an insult to the
> whore profession.

very good point. -> true

since I got your attention.. I thing it is time to start a std.container discussion. Your AA lib call is not making much progress and I further think Steven is also waiting for some D2 decisions.

guess what I want to say is that we need some clarification about ranges and opXXX

FI your AA implementation is using ranges as formalism. In other words you implement them as part of a node structure. Andrei is defining them as Interfaces. Steven also has a different view on how to implement collection ( using a struct pair) instead of K,V.  using kinda Iterators..

Almost your questions :

allow custom allocators ?
ref or value semantics
specialized quantity allocators for low/high capacity containers.

what I really like in Steven's implementation is support replaceable data structures/algorithms..  AAs could be based on RB trees as well as on SkipList..  but : Is this a good thing ? Is there a way to decide at runtime ?
--
In case that we choose classes (implementing Tange Interfaces) it would be (IMO) a good start to create the class-interface hierarchy  Andrei has an eye on Gobo Eiffel but a discussion would make sense.

a lot of questions, hope YOU will create a new thread.