December 02, 2017
Walter Bright wrote:

> You cannot add/change the license of software without permission from the copyright holder. Translating the code from one language to another does not erase the copyright - it's still a derived work.

but you still can add another license to source code translation, if that new license doesn't violate the original one. like, you can distribute some source code port under GPL if the original was covered by BSDL, so the port is covered by two licenses *simultaneously* now (i.e. a user must obey both).
December 01, 2017
On 12/1/2017 2:57 PM, ketmar wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
> 
>> You cannot add/change the license of software without permission from the copyright holder. Translating the code from one language to another does not erase the copyright - it's still a derived work.
> 
> but you still can add another license to source code translation, if that new license doesn't violate the original one. like, you can distribute some source code port under GPL if the original was covered by BSDL, so the port is covered by two licenses *simultaneously* now (i.e. a user must obey both).

Any added license only applies to what you added that was new.
December 02, 2017
Walter Bright wrote:

> On 12/1/2017 2:57 PM, ketmar wrote:
>> Walter Bright wrote:
>> 
>>> You cannot add/change the license of software without permission from the copyright holder. Translating the code from one language to another does not erase the copyright - it's still a derived work.
>> but you still can add another license to source code translation, if that new license doesn't violate the original one. like, you can distribute some source code port under GPL if the original was covered by BSDL, so the port is covered by two licenses *simultaneously* now (i.e. a user must obey both).
>
> Any added license only applies to what you added that was new.

which, in case of source port, is everything. it is still derived work, so i cannot drop the original license, but the port is covered by both licenses, and added license cannot be removed too.
December 02, 2017
On Friday, 1 December 2017 at 16:24:27 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote:
> On Thursday, 30 November 2017 at 19:17:32 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote:
>> ...
>
> Ok, decided to try to make it from scratch based off just the spec in order to avoid any issues. You can follow my progress if you so desire here: https://github.com/JackStouffer/stdxdecimal

Just the fact that you've seen that source code, is enough to have already 'contaminated' you with that source code's licence, and, that could (potentially)constitute your work as being a derivative work.

Lesson? Be careful what source code you look at ;-)

December 01, 2017
On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 02:35:18AM +0000, codephantom via Digitalmars-d wrote: [...]
> Just the fact that you've seen that source code, is enough to have already 'contaminated' you with that source code's licence, and, that could (potentially)constitute your work as being a derivative work.
> 
> Lesson? Be careful what source code you look at ;-)

This is why Walter does not look at the code for any other compiler -- he could potentially be accused of stealing code from others.

Though I'm not sure if this has changed now that Symantec has so graciously granted him to relicense the DMD backend code (which is shared with DMC, IIRC).


T

-- 
Give a man a fish, and he eats once. Teach a man to fish, and he will sit forever.
December 02, 2017
On Saturday, 2 December 2017 at 02:35:18 UTC, codephantom wrote:
> Just the fact that you've seen that source code, is enough to have already 'contaminated' you with that source code's licence, and, that could (potentially)constitute your work as being a derivative work.

To that I say "prove it in court" :)
December 02, 2017
On Saturday, 2 December 2017 at 05:05:14 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote:
> On Saturday, 2 December 2017 at 02:35:18 UTC, codephantom wrote:
>> Just the fact that you've seen that source code, is enough to have already 'contaminated' you with that source code's licence, and, that could (potentially)constitute your work as being a derivative work.
>
> To that I say "prove it in court" :)

What if I can afford the best intellectual property rights lawyers on the planet.

You best start saving ;-)

December 02, 2017
On 2017-12-01 23:45, Walter Bright wrote:

> I had forgotten, permission indeed was in my email archives from 2011.
> 
> But a problem remained - to anyone looking at the file, it looks like we copied the code and changed the license without permission. So I added a comment clarifying that we did have permission.

In addition to that, the first commit for that module was a copy paste of the PHP code, which is Boost licensed [1]. I was a suggestion by you and turned out to be really useful, both for this topic and for catching issues in porting the PHP code to D.

> ---
> 
> I once received a furious email from a person who said I stole his software and was distributing it without permission. I dug back through my archives, and forwarded him his own email granting me permission. Dodged a bullet on that one.
> 
> I once solicited and received permission from K+R to quote sections of their classic C book (both were extremely nice). It was during a stretch of about 3 months where I wasn't making backups, and a disk crash wiped it out. I was too embarrassed about that to ask again, and so I never used the quotes, and now it's too late.
> 
> It pays to keep backups of email. I very rarely need it, but when I do, it's a life saver. Though having 20 years of it now means searching it is a bit of a challenge :-)

Perhaps time to write a D tool for that job ;)

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
December 02, 2017
On Thursday, 30 November 2017 at 19:17:32 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote:
> I'm starting work on a proposal for stdx.decimal, and one of the clearest implementations to work off of is the Python implementation.
>
> This however, poses a problem because Python's source is under the PSFL, a BSD-like permissive license. Any derivative work, such as a D conversion, must have the original copyright notice, a copy of the PSFL, as a well as a summary of changes. This is simple enough to do, but the resulting code would be dual-licensed with the PSFL and the BSL 1.0 (dual-licensing being relatively common in other OSS projects).
>
> My question is there any reason this could pose a problem? Could this interfere with something like distribution or company adoption?
>
> Also note, one of the existing Phobos modules, std.net.isemail, is supposed to be dual-licensed because it's derived from an existing BSD work. But, it's missing the BSD license from the top (and is technically breaking the license because of that).

That s great that you have a look at this area.

Maybe the developers of the Python Decimal Module could be asked whether they allow us to license the derived work as BSL similar to isemail.

Do you know there is already a similar attempt to bring decimal to phobos: https://github.com/andersonpd/eris
This work could also be a starting point...

Kind regards
Andre

December 02, 2017
On Saturday, 2 December 2017 at 18:30:22 UTC, Andre Pany wrote:
> Do you know there is already a similar attempt to bring decimal to phobos: https://github.com/andersonpd/eris
> This work could also be a starting point...

What about:

http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_62_0/libs/math/doc/html/math_toolkit/high_precision/use_multiprecision.html

(I haven't used it.)