May 12, 2009
dsimcha wrote:
> == Quote from Frits van Bommel (fvbommel@REMwOVExCAPSs.nl)'s article
>> Leandro Lucarella wrote:
>>> Isn't the demangle code taken from DMDFE?
>> Why would DMDFE need a demangler? It can just not mangle in the first place :).
> 
> You need name mangling for templates and function overloading to work.

Mangling, yes. Demangling, no.
(i.e. anywhere it needs the un-mangled name it can just look it up directly, without running the mangler)
May 12, 2009
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> Yes, yes, yes, I get the point. I meant Phobos...

Which is (std.demangle) explicitly public domain. If FSF has a problem with public domain submissions, please let me know. (The FSF can change one byte of it and copyright the "derived work" however way they please, and so can anyone else.)
May 12, 2009
Walter Bright, el 12 de mayo a las 10:18 me escribiste:
> Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> >Yes, yes, yes, I get the point. I meant Phobos...
> 
> Which is (std.demangle) explicitly public domain. If FSF has a problem with public domain submissions, please let me know. (The FSF can change one byte of it and copyright the "derived work" however way they please, and so can anyone else.)

I took a quick look at phobos demangle code and it doesn't look similar to
the one in the GDB patch. I guess I should checked first, my apologies for
bugging you when it looks like you have nothing to do with this patch.
I was under the impression that it used your code for some reason.

Now the only think to do is wait until Mihail Zenkov answer my mail (no
news for now =( ).

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (luca) | Blog colectivo: http://www.mazziblog.com.ar/blog/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 12, 2009
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> Now the only think to do is wait until Mihail Zenkov answer my mail (no
> news for now =( ).

If he doesn't, just recode the patch and submit it. There doesn't look like there's much to it. My understanding from the FSF is the only concern is with patches that are more than 10 lines. The single line changes here and there in the gdb patch don't need to be redone.

The point of making std.demangle public domain is so that other tools can freely incorporate it and support D!
May 12, 2009
Walter Bright wrote:
> Leandro Lucarella wrote:
>> Now the only think to do is wait until Mihail Zenkov answer my mail (no
>> news for now =( ).
> 
> If he doesn't, just recode the patch and submit it. There doesn't look like there's much to it. My understanding from the FSF is the only concern is with patches that are more than 10 lines. The single line changes here and there in the gdb patch don't need to be redone.
> 
> The point of making std.demangle public domain is so that other tools can freely incorporate it and support D!


OK, Leandro, so quoting to them the above post, and quoting the beginning of the file demangle.d ought to do the trick:

 * Placed into the Public Domain.
...
/* Authors:
 *      Walter Bright, Digital Mars, www.digitalmars.com
 *      Thomas Kuehne
 *      Frits van Bommel


---------------

Knowing what (*seriously excuse* the wording here) fascists the FSF guys are, they obviously assume similar behavior of any opposition. That explains why they appear paranoid and unreasonable in their demands of the copyright statements for any code even remotely considered for inclusion.

PS: even if the intent is benign, there's no reason for anti-benign action or attitudes. That's why their track record forced me to use harsh language, above. ((( please don't nobody get me started on this one )))


May 13, 2009
Georg Wrede wrote:
> Knowing what (*seriously excuse* the wording here) fascists the FSF guys are, they obviously assume similar behavior of any opposition. That explains why they appear paranoid and unreasonable in their demands of the copyright statements for any code even remotely considered for inclusion.

Copyright assignment makes management a hell of a lot easier for them. They have the authority to sue anyone who uses any part of their projects, and they don't have to go through their records to determine this.

This is one reason why public domain code is not particularly interesting for them.

Of course, they can put a comment the relevant code to the effect that the original is in the public domain, which should take care of the problem.
May 13, 2009
Christopher Wright wrote:
> Georg Wrede wrote:
>> Knowing what (*seriously excuse* the wording here) fascists the FSF guys are, they obviously assume similar behavior of any opposition. That explains why they appear paranoid and unreasonable in their demands of the copyright statements for any code even remotely considered for inclusion.
> 
> Copyright assignment makes management a hell of a lot easier for them. They have the authority to sue anyone who uses any part of their projects, and they don't have to go through their records to determine this.
> 
> This is one reason why public domain code is not particularly interesting for them.
> 
> Of course, they can put a comment the relevant code to the effect that the original is in the public domain, which should take care of the problem.

Well (still resisting opening Pandora's box!!!!), I see Public Domain as a superset of any of the OSS &co licenses. Oper source simply means (to me, anyway), free to use anyway you want, including selling and incorporating into other people's apps.

So, licencing somethign as Public Domain, ought to make FSF and others, to be able (er, willing would be the word) to incorporate the code, as they see fit.

May 13, 2009
Hello Georg,

> Well (still resisting opening Pandora's box!!!!), I see Public Domain
> as a superset of any of the OSS &co licenses. Oper source simply means
> (to me, anyway), free to use anyway you want, including selling and
> incorporating into other people's apps.
> 
> So, licencing somethign as Public Domain, ought to make FSF and
> others, to be able (er, willing would be the word) to incorporate the
> code, as they see fit.
> 

The issue might be that the GPL code forbids some thing and unless FSF owns the original code, the question can come up of if someone is misusing the GPL copy or correctly using the public domain copy. 


May 13, 2009
BCS wrote:
> Hello Georg,
> 
>> Well (still resisting opening Pandora's box!!!!), I see Public Domain as a superset of any of the OSS &co licenses. Oper source simply means (to me, anyway), free to use anyway you want, including selling and incorporating into other people's apps.
>>
>> So, licencing somethign as Public Domain, ought to make FSF and others, to be able (er, willing would be the word) to incorporate the code, as they see fit.
>>
> 
> The issue might be that the GPL code forbids some thing and unless FSF owns the original code, the question can come up of if someone is misusing the GPL copy or correctly using the public domain copy.

Suggestion.. avoid speculation about the FSF motives or requirements and the reasons behind them.  Let's let whoever can/will pursue it with them and see how it unfolds.
Next ›   Last »
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home