FeepingCreature Wrote: > Phobos1 is shit. The Tango devs know this, the Phobos devs know it. Anyone > who denies it has never compared the Phobos and Tango sourcecode.
It's impossible to verify those claims because reading the Tango source might taint one's mind and after that one wouldn't be allowed to contribute any code to Phobos anymore. > Your "simple" solution is never gonna happen. You're not freaking Alexander > the Great, cutting the Gordian Knot. The way D2 is going is the best solution > for both sides, imho; but _anything_ that prevents Tango/Phobos interop in > D2, or pushes away Tango devs, or pushes away Phobos devs - should be treated > as a *severe* threat to the future of the language. We *absolutely need* to > present a unified front in D2. We fucked this up once already; let's not > repeat that experience. The Tango developers could have handed over all copyrights to Walter or Phobos. This would solve the licensing problems if anything needs to change later. Many open source projects such as MySQL do this. Instead they yearned the attribution. Which one is more important, personal fame or potential solid enterprise support? If the library isn't rocket science or doesn't cure the cancer, what value does the attribution have then? The new Phobos licensing is altruistic, it reflects the modest mentality of the contributors.
