It is my understanding that several Tango developers no longer follow digitalmars.D. I recommend posting to the Tango forums.
I have been assuming the path of least resistance for D2 Tango was for Tango to replace a few components with their druntime equivalent. That would allow Tango and Phobos to be installed side by side with no legal problems. Those that use tango.xxx would have to conform to the BSD license requirements and those that don't wouldn't. Providing two alternatives which are mutually compatible is already a huge step forward from the state of D1. Maybe D2 Tango Would one day remove a few modules and use the Phobos equivalent, or convert some modules to boost license, etc... Those things are not nearly as important and could be done later. My understanding is that Tango is kept modular with minimal interdependencies. That should make those kinds of changes fairly easy. Walter Bright Wrote: > First off, I'm not a copyright lawyer, so my legal opinions are lay. > > Secondly, every time D gets mentioned publicly, such as on reddit, someone > posts > that they won't use D because there are "two standard libraries" and "when > will > D get its act together." This situation is deplorable. > > Thirdly, I understand that Tango has upwards of 50 developers, and they do > not > speak with one voice. When I say "Tango representative", it is not how he > describes himself, except that he has been asked to speak to me on behalf of > some, I don't know how many, Tango developers. When I say "Tango team", I > mean > the opinion as I interpreted it from the Tango representative. > > Sadly, I do not have an identic memory, so I'll just do the best I can to > recall > our conversation. > > I received a call from the Tango representative yesterday saying that some > developers expressed concern that SHOO's time library proposed submission to > Phobos may have an "infraction" of the Tango BSD license. The word > "infringement" was not used, though I think infraction and infringement mean > the > same thing here. > > He expressed the idea that since SHOO was admittedly very familiar with the > Tango time code, that it was not possible for his time code to be free of > "taint" from the corresponding Tango code. He was satisfied only by my > agreement > to block the inclusion of SHOO's time module in Phobos. > > The key point here is the Tango team regards it as impossible for someone > familiar with the internals of a Tango module to make a non-infringing > reimplementation of its interface. > > The discussion next turned to what can be done about it. One possibility was > for > Phobos to include modules from Tango under the BSD license. That is certainly > allowed. The problem then is that, since Phobos modules all tend to > willy-nilly > import each other, any use of Phobos will require conformance to the BSD > binary > attribution requirement. I regard this as an unnecessary and unacceptable > impediment to the adoption of D. That's fine for other libraries, but the > *standard* library shouldn't be so encumbered. > > Yes, I know Google has embraced BSD, but Google can afford to spend a billion > dollars in legal fees defending their interests. We can't. > > On the other hand, wholesale inclusion of Phobos modules into Tango under the > Boost license will impose zero additional requirements upon users of Tango. > It > is not a symmetric problem. This is why I proposed moving Tango towards the > Boost license. > > I wholly understand that it is impractical to move the entire Tango codebase > to > Boost because some of the developers are not contactable. But, it is entirely > possible for new modules to be done using Boost, and for existing modules > where > the developers can be located to be relicensed to Boost. > > The Tango representative said this was proposed, and there were some > reservations: > > 1. Since we changed the Phobos license to Boost, we might change it again and > pull the rug out from under Tango. > > The Phobos 1 license was, and remains, a mishmash of Public Domain and > various > homemade open source licenses. This was not acceptable for professional use, > and > we settled on Boost as the most liberal of the accepted open source licenses > for > Phobos 2. It would take nothing short of a catastrophe, like the courts > declaring the Boost license to be invalid, to get us to change it again. > > > 2. Tango having 2 licenses for different parts will confuse people. > > This is a reasonable concern. My answer is that we can handle such confusion, > as > both BSD and Boost licenses are simple and well known. It's a lot better than > the current situation. > > > 3. The Boost license is "viral". > > I think this concern is unfounded. > > > 4. There were some other unspecified reservations. > > I invite any that have such reservations to call me off the record on Skype. > My > Skype handle is walter.bright > > > The only other possibility Tango and Phobos can work together is for > individual > Tango developers to relicense their own code to Boost and put it into Phobos. > This has happened, for example, with Sean and Don's code. > > I reiterate my general and blanket policy of allowing any Tango developers to > use any part of Phobos I've written for Tango and relicense it as necessary > to > do so. I have not received any reciprocal agreement from the Tango team, > though > I would welcome it. > > If I have misstated, misrepresented, or misinterpreted anything, I welcome > any > corrections. > > If anyone would like to go on the record about these issues, please post > here. > If anyone wants to go off the record and talk with me directly, I'm available > on > Skype. > > I believe both sides of this have the same goal, the furtherment of D, and > want > an amicable resolution. I promise to do everything I can to make that happen.
