"Don" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:h2f2pq$64q$1@digitalmars.com...
> Tom S wrote:
>> Don wrote:
>>>
>>> AFL v3.0 Section 9.
>>> If You distribute or communicate copies of the Original Work or a
>>> Derivative Work, You must make a reasonable effort under the
>>> circumstances to obtain the express assent of recipients to the terms of
>>> this License.
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Richard Stallman's comment on this was:
>>> [ snip ]
>>> ----
>>
>> Thanks for explaining this! I was not aware of this clause. The wiki/License page for Tango puts AFL 3.0 in a much better light... I'll see what folks have to say on IRC :)
>
> Those long licenses really scare me, I'm never sure what they actually mean.
>

That's something I've always considered a big problem. And one of the main reasons I'm a huge fan of the zlib/libpng license.

Sean Kelly wrote:
> == Quote from Tom S (h3r3tic@remove.mat.uni.torun.pl)'s article
>> Sean Kelly wrote:
>>> == Quote from Tom S (h3r3tic@remove.mat.uni.torun.pl)'s article
>>>
>>>> And apparently, there's been very
>>>> little contact with Sean lately, so it's a case of 'us' vs 'them' again.
>>> No one has tried to contact me.  I talked with Fawzi a bit shortly after
>>> Druntime was created, but that's it.  I'm too busy to even do the things
>>> I have planned for Druntime anyway, so I'm not about to chase people
>>> down to try add yet more tasks to my list.
>> Here I've based my words on a chat with Lars, but it might be that you
>> being so busy was misinterpreted as not willing to communicate and
>> "acting a bit weird". It might be hard to get it out of him now, as he
>> seems to have given up on NG discussions :(
> 
> For a while, there was an attempt among the Tango folks to make me an
> ambassador of sorts to Walter and Andrei.  I never really understood the
> need for this, and I suggested that whoever wanted to contact whoever
> else simply do so.  Near as I can tell, this made me appear divisive to
> some.  More to the point, when I was working on Tango I acted upon
> my own best judgment and was trusted to do so by those involved.  This
> changed as soon as talk of collaboration began, and the Tango folks
> suggested repeatedly that there must be some sort of group consensus
> before I made any functional runtime change.  There's more, but it's all
> in the same vein.
> 
> To be quite frank, I would walk away from D entirely before I'd let myself
> be put in such a position, and were it not for the fact that I was the only
> person with the ability to resolve some of the issues involved in the
> collaboration discussions, I'd have walked away right then because of the
> pressure the Tango team was putting on me.  If this has earned me a bad
> reputation in some circles, so be it.  I continue to consider Tango support
> when making changes to Druntime, and if the Tango team doesn't intend
> to use Druntime that's really their problem at this point.
> 
> I normally wouldn't air such dirty laundry in public, but this thread shows
> that there's still a lot of confusion about where things stand concerning
> Druntime and Tango, and so I think it may help to at least outline my
> perspective on the issue.  My sincerest hope is that people will let this
> go, and focus their energies on something more productive.

Thank you, Sean! Seeing the larger picture now, I'm with you on it. I'd probably rather slit my wrists than be a proxy server / ambassador of this kind. We're in it for the code, not flame wars, after all. I also hope we can forget the quibbles and focus on helping D instead :)
I'm glad you're still with us!


-- 
Tomasz Stachowiak
http://h3.team0xf.com/
h3/h3r3tic on #D freenode

Tom S wrote:
> Thank you, Sean! Seeing the larger picture now, I'm with you on it. I'd probably rather slit my wrists than be a proxy server / ambassador of this kind. We're in it for the code, not flame wars, after all. I also hope we can forget the quibbles and focus on helping D instead :)
> I'm glad you're still with us!

So am I. Sean's been doing a great job with druntime.

Yigal Chripun wrote:
> IMHO, the Tango vs. Phobos licensing issue is the biggest bikeshed color problem in the D realm and the only people that can solve it are the tango devs and walter and co. of which Neither are willing to budge.

A lot of fundamental breaking changes were made to Phobos2 to be compatible with Tango. It's now up to Tango to take advantage of that.

Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> I know _Walter_ had a license-related reason for deliberately not
> looking at Tango.

Tango is under the BSD license, which requires attribution in binaries for linking with it. This is what the license says, regardless of how it is interpreted. I don't feel that can be ignored.

The problem with me looking at it and then contributing to Phobos is that I can be accused of violating the BSD license. They are so similar it is almost impossible for there not be some sort of taint like that. I've been developing software for 30 years now, and I've found that the best defense against such accusations is to never look at them. (And yes, I've been grilled by lawyers.) It's the same reason I never look at gcc source code.

I have asked the Tango team for a specific reciprocal cross-licensing agreement from Tango to Phobos (I have provided one so that Tango can incorporate whatever they want from Phobos). The only ones willing to do so were Sean and Don who have incorporated their Tango contributions into Phobos and relicensed them.

Sean looked around for a new license for druntime, and settled on using the Boost license which doesn't have the BSD problems and is designed for maximum utility for any purpose one may want to use it for.

Sean's druntime project is intended to be the core library that both Phobos and Tango can be built upon. It is based on Tango's core that Sean had written. Phobos was changed to work with it.

I've fixed the bugs identified to me as blocking Tango from working with D2.

If there's more I can do to make this work, I would like to know what that is.

Walter Bright Wrote:

> Yigal Chripun wrote:
> > IMHO, the Tango vs. Phobos licensing issue is the biggest bikeshed color problem in the D realm and the only people that can solve it are the tango devs and walter and co. of which Neither are willing to budge.
> 
> A lot of fundamental breaking changes were made to Phobos2 to be compatible with Tango. It's now up to Tango to take advantage of that.

the above reasoning is why the problem exists. "We did our part, go blame the other party".
can you please for once try to see the core issue here and not just the resulting problems?
there is no defined system for the development of D. even MS has a well defined plan for their .net platform. where's the plan for D? where the process to define that plan?
Either you need to have a plan or you need to have a community driven process (Java JSRs, Python PEPs).

On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 07:41:17AM -0400, yigal chripun wrote:
> there is no defined system for the development of D.

What does this have to do with the development of an independent project?

-- 
Adam D. Ruppe
http://arsdnet.net

yigal chripun Wrote:

> there is no defined system for the development of D. even MS has a well defined plan for their .net platform. where's the plan for D? where the process to define that plan? Either you need to have a plan or you need to have a community driven process (Java JSRs, Python PEPs).

How the development plan relates to tango? There's a plan to port tango to D2, though it proved to be troublesome. And I think, tango is supposed to be community driven.

Kagamin Wrote:

> yigal chripun Wrote:
> 
> > there is no defined system for the development of D. even MS has a well defined plan for their .net platform. where's the plan for D? where the process to define that plan? Either you need to have a plan or you need to have a community driven process (Java JSRs, Python PEPs).
> 
> How the development plan relates to tango? There's a plan to port tango to D2, though it proved to be troublesome. And I think, tango is supposed to be community driven.

My understanding is that the D2 port was an effort by one inspired community member. It lived in its own branch and quickly got out of date. Both D2 and this mailing list are completely ignored by the Tango developers. Once D2 stops changing, they may reconsider. As far as I know, however, there is no way to maintain a dual D1/D2 code base, and that makes me worry that the Tango devs will have to choose between D1 and D2.

Walter Bright Wrote:

> If there's more I can do to make this work, I would like to know what that is.

I know D does not burden itself with backwards compatibility, but the lack of compatibility has to affect many D projects. There are many D1-only projects that can't be used within D2. When D3 is  started, will we have even more incompatible choices? I have no solution to this issue, but it deserves some thought.

In the past, I proposed the idea of forward compatibility which would allow a D1 compiler to ignore D2-specific keywords and other minor semantic differences such as invariant()... The idea wasn't 100% compatibility, but rather to allow writing a reasonable subset of D2 that could compile in D1. Maybe a 3rd party tool to do the translation is enough?