On Tue, 18 May 2010 14:10:05 -0400, Moritz Warning <moritzwarning@web.de> wrote:

> On Tue, 18 May 2010 14:24:40 +0000, superdan wrote:
>
>> == Quote from Steven Schveighoffer (schveiguy@yahoo.com)'s article
>>> On Tue, 18 May 2010 09:39:12 -0400, superdan <super@dan.org> wrote:
>>> > guys go with boost and std.gregorian n shit. sorry shoo. tango is a
>>> > fucking boat anchor for d. shit.
>>> Having written most of the API for tango.time, I sorta like it :)  I
>>> really like the API that SHOO came up with based on it.  If there's any
>>> way to get SHOO's code into Phobos, I want to pursue that first.  If
>>> this fails, we can go with boost.
>>> -Steve
>>
>> i feel ya bro. i once sorta liked a hoe with herpes.
>>
>> way i c it is simple. it's fucking dates and fucking times. wut the
>> fuck. ain't a fucking operating system. no matter how u dress a pig u
>> still call it a fucking pig. if u have da datetime functionality it
>> don't matter to be cute. we is wasting time sucking lars douche's cock 2
>> give us permission 2 his fucking shit. fuck that shit. dis must be da
>> least amount of power that got to some idiot's head.
>
> Wut?
>
> Person A wrote some code and had a look at code from person B.
> Now person C says that A need to get permission from B so that C can use
> the code from A.
> The reason is because the license of the code written by B isn't quite
> compatible with the license recently chosen by C.
>
> And now you are calling B an idiot/douche for that reason?

Let's make it a bit clearer.  Person A *used* the code from person B, and used the *documentation* of said code to write his own similar library.  Person A has not claimed that he looked at the source.  Person B claims that it is impossible to do so without actually looking at the source, but has not yet cited any specific copying.  Person C doesn't want any trouble, and just is being extra careful.

I don't really like the situation, but if this is the way it has to be, then let's get it done and move on.

-Steve

On Wed, 19 May 2010 06:45:42 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

> On Tue, 18 May 2010 14:10:05 -0400, Moritz Warning <moritzwarning@web.de> wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, 18 May 2010 14:24:40 +0000, superdan wrote:
>>
>>> == Quote from Steven Schveighoffer (schveiguy@yahoo.com)'s article
>>>> On Tue, 18 May 2010 09:39:12 -0400, superdan <super@dan.org> wrote:
>>>> > guys go with boost and std.gregorian n shit. sorry shoo. tango is a fucking boat anchor for d. shit.
>>>> Having written most of the API for tango.time, I sorta like it :)  I
>>>> really like the API that SHOO came up with based on it.  If there's
>>>> any way to get SHOO's code into Phobos, I want to pursue that first.
>>>> If this fails, we can go with boost.
>>>> -Steve
>>>
>>> i feel ya bro. i once sorta liked a hoe with herpes.
>>>
>>> way i c it is simple. it's fucking dates and fucking times. wut the fuck. ain't a fucking operating system. no matter how u dress a pig u still call it a fucking pig. if u have da datetime functionality it don't matter to be cute. we is wasting time sucking lars douche's cock 2 give us permission 2 his fucking shit. fuck that shit. dis must be da least amount of power that got to some idiot's head.
>>
>> Wut?
>>
>> Person A wrote some code and had a look at code from person B. Now
>> person C says that A need to get permission from B so that C can use
>> the code from A.
>> The reason is because the license of the code written by B isn't quite
>> compatible with the license recently chosen by C.
>>
>> And now you are calling B an idiot/douche for that reason?
> 
> Let's make it a bit clearer.  Person A *used* the code from person B, and used the *documentation* of said code to write his own similar library. Person A has not claimed that he looked at the source.
I agree, that's more accurate.

> Person B claims that it is impossible to do so without actually looking
at the
> source, but has not yet cited any specific copying.  Person C doesn't want any trouble, and just is being extra careful.
Afaik, Person B haven't looked at the source in question but relied on
what others said.
I think it was a move forward in anticipation to Person Cs license
sensibility.
Anyway, Person B haven't hesitated when asked to give permission himself.


> I don't really like the situation, but if this is the way it has to be, then let's get it done and move on.
right :)

> -Steve

On 2010-05-14 00:52, Moritz Warning wrote:
> I have asked Kris Bell and Matti Niemenmaa.
> No Problem at all.

Since this evidently needs confirming: I'm fine with relicensing any of my contributions to the tango.time modules under the Boost Software License, Version 1.0.

-- 
E-mail address: matti.niemenmaa+news, domain is iki (DOT) fi

On Tue, 25 May 2010 13:12:14 +0000, Moritz Warning wrote:

> On Wed, 19 May 2010 06:45:42 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, 18 May 2010 14:10:05 -0400, Moritz Warning <moritzwarning@web.de> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Tue, 18 May 2010 14:24:40 +0000, superdan wrote:
>>>
>>>> == Quote from Steven Schveighoffer (schveiguy@yahoo.com)'s article
>>>>> On Tue, 18 May 2010 09:39:12 -0400, superdan <super@dan.org> wrote:
>>>>> > guys go with boost and std.gregorian n shit. sorry shoo. tango is a fucking boat anchor for d. shit.
>>>>> Having written most of the API for tango.time, I sorta like it :)  I
>>>>> really like the API that SHOO came up with based on it.  If there's
>>>>> any way to get SHOO's code into Phobos, I want to pursue that first.
>>>>> If this fails, we can go with boost.
>>>>> -Steve
>>>>
>>>> i feel ya bro. i once sorta liked a hoe with herpes.
>>>>
>>>> way i c it is simple. it's fucking dates and fucking times. wut the fuck. ain't a fucking operating system. no matter how u dress a pig u still call it a fucking pig. if u have da datetime functionality it don't matter to be cute. we is wasting time sucking lars douche's cock 2 give us permission 2 his fucking shit. fuck that shit. dis must be da least amount of power that got to some idiot's head.
>>>
>>> Wut?
>>>
>>> Person A wrote some code and had a look at code from person B. Now
>>> person C says that A need to get permission from B so that C can use
>>> the code from A.
>>> The reason is because the license of the code written by B isn't quite
>>> compatible with the license recently chosen by C.
>>>
>>> And now you are calling B an idiot/douche for that reason?
>> 
>> Let's make it a bit clearer.  Person A *used* the code from person B, and used the *documentation* of said code to write his own similar library. Person A has not claimed that he looked at the source.
> I agree, that's more accurate.
> 
>> Person B claims that it is impossible to do so without actually looking
> at the
>> source, but has not yet cited any specific copying.  Person C doesn't want any trouble, and just is being extra careful.
> Afaik, Person B haven't looked at the source in question but relied on
> what others said.
> I think it was a move forward in anticipation to Person Cs license
> sensibility.
> Anyway, Person B haven't hesitated when asked to give permission
> himself.
I have to correct that line, it's more like *no comment*. :/