I'd like to publish a number of modules as "Venus"-library under an appropriate license.

I would like to make everything
   - available for future versions of Phobos / D without restrictions
   - available to the public und domething like GPL
I'd like to draw from Phobos and other existing OS libraries
and libraries and refactor a few things.

How is the license situation and how can I fit in?

--
Helmut Leitner    leitner@hls.via.at Graz, Austria   www.hls-software.com

I too would like to understand the (clear) picture regarding D, especially
in respect of possible contributions to Phobos (for which I have a few ideas
brewing).

As far as I can tell there seems to be no formal procedure. Of course we all dislike formality, but it seems like there should be some kind of mechanism for enhancing/expanding Phobos.


"Helmut Leitner" <helmut.leitner@chello.at> wrote in message news:3EA68886.998338AD@chello.at...
> I'd like to publish a number of modules as "Venus"-library under an appropriate license.
>
> I would like to make everything
>    - available for future versions of Phobos / D without restrictions
>    - available to the public und domething like GPL
> I'd like to draw from Phobos and other existing OS libraries
> and libraries and refactor a few things.
>
> How is the license situation and how can I fit in?
>
> --
> Helmut Leitner    leitner@hls.via.at
> Graz, Austria   www.hls-software.com

One way is to make it explicitly public domain. If not, what rights do you wish to retain? A possibility would be a dual GPL/whatever license.

"Helmut Leitner" <helmut.leitner@chello.at> wrote in message news:3EA68886.998338AD@chello.at...
> I'd like to publish a number of modules as "Venus"-library under an appropriate license.
>
> I would like to make everything
>    - available for future versions of Phobos / D without restrictions
>    - available to the public und domething like GPL
> I'd like to draw from Phobos and other existing OS libraries
> and libraries and refactor a few things.
>
> How is the license situation and how can I fit in?
>
> --
> Helmut Leitner    leitner@hls.via.at
> Graz, Austria   www.hls-software.com

The easiest would be to just make it public domain.

"Matthew Wilson" <matthew@stlsoft.org> wrote in message news:b866h0$182$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> I too would like to understand the (clear) picture regarding D, especially
> in respect of possible contributions to Phobos (for which I have a few
ideas
> brewing).
>
> As far as I can tell there seems to be no formal procedure. Of course we
all
> dislike formality, but it seems like there should be some kind of
mechanism
> for enhancing/expanding Phobos.

Walter wrote:
> 
> One way is to make it explicitly public domain. If not, what rights do you wish to retain?

If I would e. g. take a module from Phobos, improve on it and publish it as public domain this would in effect put parts of Phobos into the public domain.

Am I allowed to do this? There is no clear statement about Phobos copyrights. Many files have no notice, some carry an "All Rights Reserved" label...

-- 
Helmut Leitner    leitner@hls.via.at
Graz, Austria   www.hls-software.com

"Helmut Leitner" <leitner@hls.via.at> wrote in message news:3EA6F8A6.BBBC5A9@hls.via.at...
>
>
> Walter wrote:
> >
> > One way is to make it explicitly public domain. If not, what rights do
you
> > wish to retain?
>
> If I would e. g. take a module from Phobos, improve on it and publish it
as
> public domain this would in effect put parts of Phobos into the public
domain.
>
> Am I allowed to do this? There is no clear statement about Phobos
copyrights.
> Many files have no notice, some carry an "All Rights Reserved" label...

I should revisit that. In the meantime, the easiest thing to do is you can donate the changes to Digital Mars, and I'll put a credit for you in the source.

I don't understand. Do you mean make the code (one wishes to contribute) public-domain, rather than worrying about it going into Phobos?

To me at least, it seems that there are a great many projects dotted around, of a variety of types (some basic library infrastructure, some specific tools/technologies), and it's been observed numerous times that there is no good (definitive and visible) central repository/forum.

And if that is what you do mean, how does that help with Phobos? For myself (and I suspect for Helmut and quite a number of others) I have a strong interest in contributing to Phobos. Not only is there the attraction of "being in the runtime" but also because there are areas in which it is lacking and especially that there is a desire to help D fulfil its potential. The idea of just having another little library out there in the aether has far less appeal, from the perspective of any of the motivations given above.

What I (we) want is this:
 - a drive/movement/willingness from D (i.e. you) to encourage and be open
to expansion of the runtime library from contributors
 - a mechanism for ensuring conformance to the D vision, quality,
efficiency, and avoiding having Java/.NET/MSVCRT-sized bloating.
 - a group, not just one individual, who can respond to errors in the
library, with fixes and advice. (This may mean still

Now I don't know the precise form that this should take (we're not suggesting that you allow us shell access into your source code control database and build system), but the way things are structure at the moment is far from encouraging to potential contributors.

I can't speak for others, but I don't have a problem with donating my IP to Phobos.

Am I correct in assuming that the above is representative of most of the members of the D community, or am I just whistling in the wind? Please speak out either way

One of the clear draws of .NET and Java is that they have very extensive - and very useful, if we're honest - libraries. It seems to me that a powerful, but fat-free, library for D will be critical in making D a success.

People want to contribute, they just don't see how.



"Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:b86psp$eum$2@digitaldaemon.com...
> The easiest would be to just make it public domain.
>
> "Matthew Wilson" <matthew@stlsoft.org> wrote in message news:b866h0$182$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > I too would like to understand the (clear) picture regarding D,
especially
> > in respect of possible contributions to Phobos (for which I have a few
> ideas
> > brewing).
> >
> > As far as I can tell there seems to be no formal procedure. Of course we
> all
> > dislike formality, but it seems like there should be some kind of
> mechanism
> > for enhancing/expanding Phobos.
>
>

One thing I do wish to avoid is a tangle of conflicting licenses in Phobos. So, any contributions to the core Phobos should be clearly marked as one of the following:

1) public domain
2) donated to Digital Mars (and I'll put a credit in for the author)
3) copyrighted by the contributor but an unlimited free license is granted
for any purpose

Modifications / bug fixes to existing Phobos code should be (2).

I welcome the development of add-ons, and certainly the development of 3rd party libraries for D. These can be under any license the author wishes, including commercial licenses or GPL.

"Matthew Wilson" <matthew@stlsoft.org> wrote in message news:b87819$o78$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> I don't understand. Do you mean make the code (one wishes to contribute) public-domain, rather than worrying about it going into Phobos?
>
> To me at least, it seems that there are a great many projects dotted
around,
> of a variety of types (some basic library infrastructure, some specific tools/technologies), and it's been observed numerous times that there is
no
> good (definitive and visible) central repository/forum.
>
> And if that is what you do mean, how does that help with Phobos? For
myself
> (and I suspect for Helmut and quite a number of others) I have a strong interest in contributing to Phobos. Not only is there the attraction of "being in the runtime" but also because there are areas in which it is lacking and especially that there is a desire to help D fulfil its potential. The idea of just having another little library out there in the aether has far less appeal, from the perspective of any of the motivations given above.
>
> What I (we) want is this:
>  - a drive/movement/willingness from D (i.e. you) to encourage and be open
> to expansion of the runtime library from contributors
>  - a mechanism for ensuring conformance to the D vision, quality,
> efficiency, and avoiding having Java/.NET/MSVCRT-sized bloating.
>  - a group, not just one individual, who can respond to errors in the
> library, with fixes and advice. (This may mean still
>
> Now I don't know the precise form that this should take (we're not suggesting that you allow us shell access into your source code control database and build system), but the way things are structure at the moment is far from encouraging to potential contributors.
>
> I can't speak for others, but I don't have a problem with donating my IP
to
> Phobos.
>
> Am I correct in assuming that the above is representative of most of the members of the D community, or am I just whistling in the wind? Please
speak
> out either way
>
> One of the clear draws of .NET and Java is that they have very extensive - and very useful, if we're honest - libraries. It seems to me that a powerful, but fat-free, library for D will be critical in making D a success.
>
> People want to contribute, they just don't see how.
>
>
>
> "Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:b86psp$eum$2@digitaldaemon.com...
> > The easiest would be to just make it public domain.
> >
> > "Matthew Wilson" <matthew@stlsoft.org> wrote in message news:b866h0$182$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > > I too would like to understand the (clear) picture regarding D,
> especially
> > > in respect of possible contributions to Phobos (for which I have a few
> > ideas
> > > brewing).
> > >
> > > As far as I can tell there seems to be no formal procedure. Of course
we
> > all
> > > dislike formality, but it seems like there should be some kind of
> > mechanism
> > > for enhancing/expanding Phobos.
> >
> >
>
>