Steven Schveighoffer さんは書きました:
> On Thu, 13 May 2010 10:42:56 -0400, SHOO <zan77137@nifty.com> wrote:
> 
> I don't know if this will be enough, I wish I could tell you different.  Can you identify which functions you rewrote from the original proposal to help focus Tango's attention?
> 

http://ideone.com/TZ3Bi

- I specified my real name for "Author:" tag.
- Renamed Span to Duration.
- Added Duration.seconds, Duration.mseconds, Duration.useconds, Duration.nseconds.
- Wrote "Note:" tags and comments for assertion of infringement-free.
- Rewrote EPOCH1970(This becomes the same quantity even if anyone calculates, but just to be safe) by own hand newly
- Rewrote Date.isLeapYear by own hand newly (I wrote old isLeapYear by own hand too. However, by a check, I confirmed that it was the same as Tango's code.)
- Added some unittest codes
- Fixed iso8601 format, "yyyy-mm-dd hh:mm:ss,sss" to "yyyy-mm-ddThh:mm:ss,sss"
- Renamed Clocks to Ticks
- Added Ticks.seconds, Ticks.mseconds, Ticks.useconds, Ticks.nseconds.
- Clocks.span to Clocks.duration


> Is there anyone listening from Tango who can check this against Tango code to see if you still consider it to be infringing?
> 
>> If this contribution is turned down, I give up std.time.
> 
> First, I hope this can be included, it looks like very solid code.  Second, if it cannot be included, I hope this does not dissuade you from contributing to Phobos for other modules.
> 
> -Steve

Thanks. But don't worry.
My next challenge only begins even if it became the second situation.

Walter Bright さんは書きました:
> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> First, I hope this can be included, it looks like very solid code.  Second, if it cannot be included, I hope this does not dissuade you from contributing to Phobos for other modules.
> 
> 
> Basically, the next time there's a suggestion of infringement from anyone, I'd like a specific list of the lines of source that are infringing. I don't think there's any reasonable way to deal with it otherwise. It shouldn't be necessary to guess what those lines might be.

I think so, too.
At least, I cannot work around hearsay suggestions accurately.
I cannot know where/who I ask it.

Thu, 13 May 2010 14:37:58 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:

> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> First, I hope this can be included, it looks like very solid code. Second, if it cannot be included, I hope this does not dissuade you from contributing to Phobos for other modules.
> 
> 
> Basically, the next time there's a suggestion of infringement from anyone, I'd like a specific list of the lines of source that are infringing. I don't think there's any reasonable way to deal with it otherwise. It shouldn't be necessary to guess what those lines might be.

You can have long lasting legal battles even without clearly specifying the infringing lines of code. You've probably heard of SCO (a Microsoft's sockpuppet company) and the claims about origins of infringing UNIX/Linux kernel (version 2.7) code. That's also how patent FUD works. They say that Linux infringes 107 instances of their intellectual property gems, i.e. patents.

On Fri, 14 May 2010 21:01:10 -0400, retard <re@tard.com.invalid> wrote:

> Thu, 13 May 2010 14:37:58 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
>
>> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>> First, I hope this can be included, it looks like very solid code.
>>> Second, if it cannot be included, I hope this does not dissuade you
>>> from contributing to Phobos for other modules.
>>
>>
>> Basically, the next time there's a suggestion of infringement from
>> anyone, I'd like a specific list of the lines of source that are
>> infringing. I don't think there's any reasonable way to deal with it
>> otherwise. It shouldn't be necessary to guess what those lines might be.
>
> You can have long lasting legal battles even without clearly specifying
> the infringing lines of code. You've probably heard of SCO (a Microsoft's
> sockpuppet company) and the claims about origins of infringing UNIX/Linux
> kernel (version 2.7) code. That's also how patent FUD works. They say
> that Linux infringes 107 instances of their intellectual property gems,
> i.e. patents.

In SCO's case, they did not want to reveal the lines because they would then be publishing that source without a license.  Personally, I think it's because they knew they had no case.

And SCO has 0 patent infringement claims in their lawsuits.

In this case, both Tango and Phobos are open source, there is no reason to keep secret the lines of code that are infringing.  And I don't anticipate that Tango or Walter are interested in having legal battles, what is there to gain?  I think it's reasonable that if someone from Tango or Phobos things there is unlicensed copying, they come forth with evidence instead of suspicion.

-Steve