June 25, 2014
On 6/25/14, 6:19 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> Why? I still don't get it. All the rest makes no sense at all unless you
> can answer that question.

I care for his peace of mind enough to do him a small favor. -- Andrei
_______________________________________________
dmd-internals mailing list
dmd-internals@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals
June 25, 2014
David Nadlinger via dmd-internals, el 25 de June a las 02:19 me escribiste: [snip]

I agree with all this, thanks for putting it so nicely.

>    A.4) b) Somebody discovers that the Boost license actually
> carries some restrictions that nobody thought of before, meaning
> that it is in fact not the near-perfect emulation of "do anything
> you want, as long as you retain the copyright notices" we want it to
> be.
> 
> So, with 4) b), we have identified a single situation where it would be beneficial to have a single copyright owner for the project. In

And I want to state that not even this is a huge problem if we allow the code to be used with a newer version of the Boost license too, same as people using the GPL do. That's all you need to overcome this issue.


-- 
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)                     http://llucax.com.ar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Los sueños de los niños son especialmente importantes en su etapa de
formación; si un niño no sueña es que será un pelotudo toda la vida.
	-- Ricardo Vaporeso
_______________________________________________
dmd-internals mailing list
dmd-internals@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals
June 25, 2014
Walter Bright via dmd-internals, el 24 de June a las 20:33 me escribiste:
> 
> On 6/24/2014 5:19 PM, David Nadlinger wrote:
> >
> >   C.6) You wrote earlier that "the credit has a lot of value to
> >one's professional career", and I couldn't agree more. Yet at the same time, you are asking people for the permission to take it away from them. Regardless of whether you actually intend to do that or not, the simple possibility makes this a rude thing to do without a good reason.
> >
> 
> 
> I find this discussion rather exhausting. But I want to respond strongly to this point.

Walter, this is by far the least important point in that e-mail, please read it all and respond to all the points, or at least the most important ones to justify your desire to require copyright assignment.

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)                     http://llucax.com.ar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They love me like I was a brother
They protect me, listen to me
They dug me my very own garden
Gave me sunshine, made me happy

Nice dream, nice dream
Nice dream
_______________________________________________
dmd-internals mailing list
dmd-internals@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals
June 25, 2014
Andrei Alexandrescu, el 25 de June a las 06:21 me escribiste:
> On 6/25/14, 6:19 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> >Why? I still don't get it. All the rest makes no sense at all unless you can answer that question.
> 
> I care for his peace of mind enough to do him a small favor. -- Andrei

This is ridiculous, seriously, I'm surprised. I thought we were smart technical people.

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)                     http://llucax.com.ar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
aFR [afr@my.farts.cause.nuclear.reaction.org] has quit IRC (Ping timeout)
_______________________________________________
dmd-internals mailing list
dmd-internals@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals
June 25, 2014
On 6/25/14, 6:21 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 6/25/14, 6:19 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
>> Why? I still don't get it. All the rest makes no sense at all unless you
>> can answer that question.
>
> I care for his peace of mind enough to do him a small favor. -- Andrei

To better put this in context of my previous rant (sorry): I've transferred copyright for much less reason and to entities I'm much less aligned with. Walter is literally the only representative whom I could fight on this; he'd sit down and stoically answer challenges, has no lawyers to do his bidding, and has not once alluded to ceasing cooperation (as said lawyers sure would as a simple recourse). I'd be quite a special kind of an asshole if I'd pick a matter with Walter only because I could.

> Walter, this is by far the least important point in that e-mail,
> please read it all and respond to all the points, or at least the
> most important ones to justify your desire to require copyright
> assignment.

It's likely you have signed a number of agreements in which you're giving up something: conference talks, contracts, and entering Facebook's campus last year. DConf 2013 didn't ask for a copyright release form for your talk's video, but many conferences do.

My question is, in how many instances did you challenge the representative to answer all concerns you had over the contract? In how many cases did you ask for justification of their desire to have you sign the release? And if so how did that work for you?


Andrei
_______________________________________________
dmd-internals mailing list
dmd-internals@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals
June 25, 2014
Andrei Alexandrescu, el 25 de June a las 07:04 me escribiste:
> On 6/25/14, 6:21 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> >On 6/25/14, 6:19 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> >>Why? I still don't get it. All the rest makes no sense at all unless you can answer that question.
> >
> >I care for his peace of mind enough to do him a small favor. -- Andrei
> 
> To better put this in context of my previous rant (sorry): I've transferred copyright for much less reason and to entities I'm much less aligned with.

What you're still not getting is this is completely beyond the point. I did that too, I'm just not telling it because is irrelevant to the discussion. I would happily cede some rights to the FSF because there is a reason for it. You just have to give me a reason to do the same with Digital Mars, not just tell me to which horrible institutions you had to cede your rights to.

And you have to do it in the context of what's best for D, as David put it.


> Walter is literally the only representative whom I could fight on this; he'd sit down and stoically answer challenges, has no lawyers to do his bidding, and has not once alluded to ceasing cooperation (as said lawyers sure would as a simple recourse). I'd be quite a special kind of an asshole if I'd pick a matter with Walter only because I could.

And it's not that. I'm sure you got some money for your other ceded rights, and it was your choice to do so. You negotiated, the same way me and other people are negotiating with you and Walter now, even when this time is not about money.

> >Walter, this is by far the least important point in that e-mail, please read it all and respond to all the points, or at least the most important ones to justify your desire to require copyright assignment.
> 
> It's likely you have signed a number of agreements in which you're giving up something: conference talks, contracts, and entering Facebook's campus last year. DConf 2013 didn't ask for a copyright release form for your talk's video, but many conferences do.

Of course I do, I never said I didn't. But I chose to do so based on cost-benefit. If I think I'm being asked to cede rights without a good reason is very likely that I won't do it. And as David said, I know the community, and Walter, so there is a chance I would do it anyway. But I'm not so certain other individuals and companies will be willing to do that, and as David said you are closing doors for potential contributions without any reasonable reason (pardon the redundancy).

> My question is, in how many instances did you challenge the representative to answer all concerns you had over the contract? In

VERY often.

> how many cases did you ask for justification of their desire to have you sign the release? And if so how did that work for you?

In all of them (at least when I was aware I was ceding any rights, I don't remember the case of DConf2013 videos for example). I even resigned from a job because they wanted to change the contract terms to much more unfair terms, and I removed some accounts for some services for the same reason.

I don't know, maybe I'm just a crazy guy that read contracts and ask them to be fixed when they are wrong...

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)                     http://llucax.com.ar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
¿Pero cómo? ¿Todavía votan?
	-- Sidharta Kiwi
_______________________________________________
dmd-internals mailing list
dmd-internals@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals
June 25, 2014
On 6/25/2014 2:35 AM, Iain Buclaw via dmd-internals wrote:
>
> To start with, what will happen with the Symantec backend?  I assume
> whatever agreement Walter may have with them only extends as far as
> himself.
>

That agreement is transferable.

BTW, I have attempted more than once to simply buy out the code from Symantec, so I can Boost it. But they are unwilling to do so, I don't know why.
_______________________________________________
dmd-internals mailing list
dmd-internals@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals
June 25, 2014
On 6/25/2014 7:21 AM, Leandro Lucarella via dmd-internals wrote:
>
> Of course I do, I never said I didn't. But I chose to do so based on
> cost-benefit. If I think I'm being asked to cede rights without a good
> reason is very likely that I won't do it. And as David said, I know the
> community, and Walter, so there is a chance I would do it anyway. But
> I'm not so certain other individuals and companies will be willing to do
> that, and as David said you are closing doors for potential
> contributions without any reasonable reason (pardon the redundancy).
>

I have given reasons. If you don't find them reasonable, that's ok, but when you say I haven't given a reason then I feel we are just talking past each other. It's likely we will never agree 100%, and nearly impossible that 100% of the D contributors will agree 100% on anything - at some point we just have to accept things and move on.

As for some contributors turning away over this, that would be regrettable. But consider that over the years I've worked with a lot of good developers. Sometimes I'll run into one that is very, very concerned about other people stealing their ideas, and regularly accuse others of actually doing so. When we part ways, frankly, it's a relief not to have to deal with them anymore. Do I really want to have copyrights inextricably mingled with theirs, so I'm "joined at the hip" with them forever? No. And I doubt you would, either. Their contribution is just not worth the aggravation.

If anyone should be mad about others stealing code/ideas, it should be me. I actually have had people steal my code, blatantly replace my copyright notice with theirs, and go on to make 5-6 figures off of it, more than once.

It's taken me many years to come to around to buying into Boost, and not worrying about other people stealing my ideas. These days, what makes me happy is if someone finds my code good enough to use!

I would make DMD public domain if I could. But legally that won't work. So I go for the next best thing. Consider also that:

1. I don't have a well-financed phalanx of lawyers to consult, or even one, let alone have the resources to litigate anybody over the rights issue. It's not going to happen. Nor do I want to expend the time to do it. Nor is anyone offering such resources.

2. I want D to be as available as possible. That means I need to be able to make adjustments to the license as required to do so, on behalf of the greater D community.

3. You mentioned Boost1 and Boost2 licenses living alongside each other. That isn't practical with DMD. Contributions are all inextricably entangled with each other in the code. How could anyone try to tease out which are which license?

4. The credit issue is amply handled by github.

5. Many have expressed confidence that Boost is a perfect license and will never need changing. All I hear there is my father saying "famous last words". Heck, I don't expect my house to burn down, either, but I still buy fire insurance for the simple reason that I cannot afford the loss. I don't have comprehensive insurance on my car because I can afford to lose the car. I (and I presume to include the other dmd contributors) cannot afford to lose DMD.

6. With DMD assignment, the worst case (i.e. I break bad) is that the D community will have to rely on Boost 1.0. Without DMD assignment, the best case is that we have to rely on Boost 1.0. I don't see any case where the contributors or community is legally worse off with CA.

7. All the DMD contributors I have asked to assign copyright have done so. I view this with gratitude and great pleasure that we have such an awesome community of developers here, all willing to work together to make sure that D is and will remain free for all to use without constraint.

8. Dealing with this is not something that I want to do. I just want to write code. But who else is going to? Somebody has to step up and do their best to make these sorts of decisions, even when not everyone agrees. For better or worse, the ball's in my court, and I need to deal with it the best I can. I believe that copyright assignment for major contributors to the DMD compiler code is the most practical and pragmatic solution for us. It protects you, I, and the other contributors to ensure our work will not get discarded for unfortunate legal reasons. So I respectfully ask for your indulgence on this.
_______________________________________________
dmd-internals mailing list
dmd-internals@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals
June 25, 2014
On 25 June 2014 16:02, Walter Bright via dmd-internals <dmd-internals@puremagic.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/25/2014 2:35 AM, Iain Buclaw via dmd-internals wrote:
>>
>>
>> To start with, what will happen with the Symantec backend?  I assume whatever agreement Walter may have with them only extends as far as himself.
>>
>
> That agreement is transferable.
>
> BTW, I have attempted more than once to simply buy out the code from Symantec, so I can Boost it. But they are unwilling to do so, I don't know why.
>

I am aware, I think this has been touched upon at least once every
time we meet at DConf. :-)
_______________________________________________
dmd-internals mailing list
dmd-internals@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals
June 25, 2014
On Wednesday, June 25, 2014 15:59:38 Leandro Lucarella via dmd-internals wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu, el 25 de June a las 06:21 me escribiste:
> > On 6/25/14, 6:19 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> > >Why? I still don't get it. All the rest makes no sense at all unless you can answer that question.
> >
> > I care for his peace of mind enough to do him a small favor. -- Andrei
>
> This is ridiculous, seriously, I'm surprised. I thought we were smart technical people.

I confess that I'm a bit surprised that Andrei is responding the way that he is - particularly in light of the fact that most open source projects do not require copyright assignment - and I think that he's reacting too strongly, but so are you. Having tempers flare over this isn't helping anyone. This conversation seriously threatens to reach the point where it's uncivil enough that it's unuseful and counter-productive, if it hasn't reached that point already.

- Jonathan M Davis

_______________________________________________
dmd-internals mailing list
dmd-internals@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8