On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:02:32 -0400, Moritz Warning <moritzwarning@web.de> wrote:

> have you thought about just asking the authors of the Tango code in
> question?
> I would imagine they would say that they only see a minor resemblance in
> the api and asking wouldn't even be necessary from their point of view.
>
> But since W/Phobos is very copyright sensitive, I'm sure they will give
> the permission.

At least one of the authors (John Chapman) is MIA.  Nobody can find him.  This was Walter's message:

"In order to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, there won't be any submissions to Phobos that are based on Tango code, even simply Tango interfaces, without the explicit permission of all authors of that code.

One of the major authors of the Tango time module, John Chapman, cannot be located so until he is and agrees the proposed Phobos time module cannot be accepted."

-Steve

On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:07:06 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

> On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:02:32 -0400, Moritz Warning <moritzwarning@web.de> wrote:
> 
>> have you thought about just asking the authors of the Tango code in
>> question?
>> I would imagine they would say that they only see a minor resemblance
>> in the api and asking wouldn't even be necessary from their point of
>> view.
>>
> One of the major authors of the Tango time module, John Chapman, cannot be located so until he is and agrees the proposed Phobos time module cannot be accepted."
> 
> -Steve

Well, then let's point this out (we need to contact JC, that's the
problem at heart).
All the blaming doesn't help anyone.

On 04/30/2010 08:55 AM, Moritz Warning wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:07:06 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:02:32 -0400, Moritz Warning
>> <moritzwarning@web.de>  wrote:
>>
>>> have you thought about just asking the authors of the Tango code in
>>> question?
>>> I would imagine they would say that they only see a minor resemblance
>>> in the api and asking wouldn't even be necessary from their point of
>>> view.
>>>
>> One of the major authors of the Tango time module, John Chapman, cannot
>> be located so until he is and agrees the proposed Phobos time module
>> cannot be accepted."
>>
>> -Steve
>
> Well, then let's point this out (we need to contact JC, that's the
> problem at heart).
> All the blaming doesn't help anyone.

Moritz, I think there is a misunderstanding somewhere.

Following SHOO's request to add his date/time to Phobos, Walter received a phone call at home from a Tango representative. The representative stated that the Tango team (of which five people worked on the date/time code) finds that code infringing upon their license, which would make Phobos infringing if it accepted said code.


Andrei

Andrei Alexandrescu дµ½:

> On 04/30/2010 08:55 AM, Moritz Warning wrote:
> > On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:07:06 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:02:32 -0400, Moritz Warning <moritzwarning@web.de>  wrote:
> >>
> >>> have you thought about just asking the authors of the Tango code in
> >>> question?
> >>> I would imagine they would say that they only see a minor resemblance
> >>> in the api and asking wouldn't even be necessary from their point of
> >>> view.
> >>>
> >> One of the major authors of the Tango time module, John Chapman, cannot be located so until he is and agrees the proposed Phobos time module cannot be accepted."
> >>
> >> -Steve
> >
> > Well, then let's point this out (we need to contact JC, that's the
> > problem at heart).
> > All the blaming doesn't help anyone.
> 
> Moritz, I think there is a misunderstanding somewhere.
> 
> Following SHOO's request to add his date/time to Phobos, Walter received a phone call at home from a Tango representative. The representative stated that the Tango team (of which five people worked on the date/time code) finds that code infringing upon their license, which would make Phobos infringing if it accepted said code.
> 
> 
> Andrei

Prohibit tango use dmd1

On 10-04-29 10:49 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 04/29/2010 09:39 AM, SHOO wrote:
>> Andrei Alexandrescu さんは書きました:
>>> Thanks! You are now a Phobos developer.
>> I'm happy to join member of Phobos developer!
>>
>> > Unfortunately you cannot commit
>>> your changes to std.date because it infringes on Tango's license.
>>>
>>> Andrei
>>
>> What did I infringe the license of Tango for? For interfaces? For
>> implements?
>> I've written the codes without the intention. Please tell me the points
>> that are the problem.
>
> I don't know other details except that a Tango representative explicitly
> warned us about the potential infringement yesterday. You may want to
> check with the Tango team. I am sorry for the disappointment this must
> entail to you.
>
> The current direction considered for std.date is to take the design of
> Boost.Date_Time as a starting point.
>
> http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_42_0/doc/html/date_time.html

I wonder how hard it would be to do a simple transliteration of boost.date_time into D as a first step? Might it expedite development if we could take not just the design, but the actual working code, as a basis?

The optimistic newbie in me imagines that such a transliteration wouldn't be too difficult, since so many C++ idioms map directly into D.

Graham

== Quote from dolive (dolive89@sinal.com)'s article
> Andrei Alexandrescu дµ½:
> > On 04/30/2010 08:55 AM, Moritz Warning wrote:
> > > On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:07:06 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:02:32 -0400, Moritz Warning <moritzwarning@web.de>  wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> have you thought about just asking the authors of the Tango code in
> > >>> question?
> > >>> I would imagine they would say that they only see a minor resemblance
> > >>> in the api and asking wouldn't even be necessary from their point of
> > >>> view.
> > >>>
> > >> One of the major authors of the Tango time module, John Chapman, cannot be located so until he is and agrees the proposed Phobos time module cannot be accepted."
> > >>
> > >> -Steve
> > >
> > > Well, then let's point this out (we need to contact JC, that's the
> > > problem at heart).
> > > All the blaming doesn't help anyone.
> >
> > Moritz, I think there is a misunderstanding somewhere.
> >
> > Following SHOO's request to add his date/time to Phobos, Walter received a phone call at home from a Tango representative. The representative stated that the Tango team (of which five people worked on the date/time code) finds that code infringing upon their license, which would make Phobos infringing if it accepted said code.
> >
> >
> > Andrei
> Prohibit tango use dmd1

Yes. They shown their true face today. I deleted all Tango code on my disk and I will never use it. It is poison.

On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 10:12:53 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

> On 04/30/2010 08:55 AM, Moritz Warning wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:07:06 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:02:32 -0400, Moritz Warning <moritzwarning@web.de>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> have you thought about just asking the authors of the Tango code in
>>>> question?
>>>> I would imagine they would say that they only see a minor resemblance
>>>> in the api and asking wouldn't even be necessary from their point of
>>>> view.
>>>>
>>> One of the major authors of the Tango time module, John Chapman, cannot be located so until he is and agrees the proposed Phobos time module cannot be accepted."
>>>
>>> -Steve
>>
>> Well, then let's point this out (we need to contact JC, that's the
>> problem at heart).
>> All the blaming doesn't help anyone.
> 
> Moritz, I think there is a misunderstanding somewhere.
> 
> Following SHOO's request to add his date/time to Phobos, Walter received a phone call at home from a Tango representative. The representative stated that the Tango team (of which five people worked on the date/time code) finds that code infringing upon their license, which would make Phobos infringing if it accepted said code.
> 
> 
> Andrei

Hi Andrei,

thanks for the reply.
I don't know how the phone call was worded, of course.
Nor can I speak for the caller.
Whatever, from my point of view, the message should have been
that Phobos probably has problems with the code due it's high license
awarenes and they could solve the issue by just asking A, B and C to be
sure.
Even those authors probably don't even think it would have been necessary
in this case.

The call should have been intended to help Phobos without interfering with the authors rights.

If it really had the "you steal our code" undertone you describe, then it's quite unfortunate, but does not represent what at least most Tango contributers think.

Has anyone bothered to ask the authors?
It matters.

On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 20:07:21 +0000, Moritz Warning wrote:

[..]
> Has anyone bothered to ask the authors? It matters.
The authors who can be reached atm., of course. :)

On 04/30/2010 03:07 PM, Moritz Warning wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 10:12:53 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>
>> On 04/30/2010 08:55 AM, Moritz Warning wrote:
>>> On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:07:06 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:02:32 -0400, Moritz Warning
>>>> <moritzwarning@web.de>   wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> have you thought about just asking the authors of the Tango code in
>>>>> question?
>>>>> I would imagine they would say that they only see a minor resemblance
>>>>> in the api and asking wouldn't even be necessary from their point of
>>>>> view.
>>>>>
>>>> One of the major authors of the Tango time module, John Chapman,
>>>> cannot be located so until he is and agrees the proposed Phobos time
>>>> module cannot be accepted."
>>>>
>>>> -Steve
>>>
>>> Well, then let's point this out (we need to contact JC, that's the
>>> problem at heart).
>>> All the blaming doesn't help anyone.
>>
>> Moritz, I think there is a misunderstanding somewhere.
>>
>> Following SHOO's request to add his date/time to Phobos, Walter received
>> a phone call at home from a Tango representative. The representative
>> stated that the Tango team (of which five people worked on the date/time
>> code) finds that code infringing upon their license, which would make
>> Phobos infringing if it accepted said code.
>>
>>
>> Andrei
>
> Hi Andrei,
>
> thanks for the reply.
> I don't know how the phone call was worded, of course.
> Nor can I speak for the caller.
> Whatever, from my point of view, the message should have been
> that Phobos probably has problems with the code due it's high license
> awarenes and they could solve the issue by just asking A, B and C to be
> sure.
> Even those authors probably don't even think it would have been necessary
> in this case.
>
> The call should have been intended to help Phobos without interfering
> with the authors rights.
>
> If it really had the "you steal our code" undertone you describe, then
> it's quite unfortunate, but does not represent what at least most Tango
> contributers think.

It did, and (as unfortunately exemplified by Steve) it doesn't quite matter what some of Tango contributers think. I will leave it to Walter to disclose the actual words used if he finds it appropriate. They are not light.

Historically Walter has been very quiet regarding this and similar dealings, and I have respected that. We both despise politics, and my perception is that this attitude is common to the other Phobos developers. His overly nice and non-political attitude has led to the odd situation where he is consistently framed as the bad guy, even in this situation which is as clear cut as it could ever get. Maybe the time has come for the truth to come forth.

> Has anyone bothered to ask the authors?
> It matters.

I don't know.


Andrei

On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 16:11:10 -0400, Moritz Warning <moritzwarning@web.de> wrote:

> On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 20:07:21 +0000, Moritz Warning wrote:
>
> [..]
>> Has anyone bothered to ask the authors? It matters.
> The authors who can be reached atm., of course. :)

Nobody exactly asked me, but I think my opinion on the matter is clear :)

The other authors I can see on the copyright notice are John Chapman and Kris Bell.

There is another author in tango.time.ISO8601, Matti Niemenmaa.  However, I'm not sure any code/api from that file was used in SHOO's lib (anyone?  I refuse to look at any more source).  I remember when Matti was developing it (we were kind of working in parallel) that it pretty much is its own separate module.

I have read somewhere that there are 5 authors, I don't know who the other author(s) might be.

-Steve