Steven Schveighoffer Wrote: > 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.
I think being overly correct politically is not necessary in this case. There's only one person against D now, the 'kris' or whatever his real name is. The way I see it, when Andrei came to the community, we all noticed how the better technical and leadership skills started to improve our situation. We've migrated to a more free license useable in commercial contexts unlike the viral Tango license with outrageous attribution clauses. Now instead of reinventing everything under a more closed "open" license, we can make use of commercial grade Boost licensed code. We also now have the good runtime by Sean (not kris) in D2 and naturally all better language features. TDPL is also more popular than the book by Tango developers, which is good for D. The whole Tango ship is sinking. Their most important developers have moved to the Phobos boat. Rest of them probably left D and found inferior mainstream languages. They're grown hatred towards D (which I can tell from the occasional trolling here) because of all those wasted years. Their only motivation to not open their codes is to revenge Walter. - G.W.
