"Steven Schveighoffer" <schvei...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:op.vqcns2egeav7ka@steve-laptop... > On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 17:53:24 -0500, David Nadlinger <s...@klickverbot.at> > wrote: > >> On 2/3/11 11:46 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote: >>> [.] If they were more open and >>> willing to share code, then building off of what they have and turning >>> it into a >>> range-based solution would likely make a lot of sense, but since that's >>> not the >>> case, we need to figure it out on our own. >> >> Just like Andrei said, I don't think this issue is worth being discussed >> over and over again, but I'm curious: Did somebody actually talk >> o »Tango« resp. the authors of its XML module concerning amendment for >> Phobos? It's needlessly fueling an »us vs. them« debate in an already >> small community of developers which drives me crazy. > > You are welcome to try. I don't hold out much hope based on past. >
The main part of the problem is that Tango modules have many developers and *all* of the relevent contributors need to 1. be successfully contacted and 2. give approval. That all stems purely from legal constraints (ie the interactions of licenses). Part two has never really been a problem, but as was learned, part one can be a real problem.
