On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 18:22:21 -0500, Nick Sabalausky <a@a.a> wrote:
"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.
I hate to fuel this any further, but I want to re-iterate what I have
learned. Please re-read my summary (titled "SHOO's Time code --
conclusion") in the announce group.
I personally went through great lengths to satisfy 1. It was 2 that was
the problem.
Seeing that the same author who did not give approval to relicense the
time code is an author of Tango's XML code, I doubt his views have changed.
-Steve
