The Boost.Date_Time library seems like a good starting point. We could port all or parts of it to D without having to worry about licence issues, and it seems to contain all we need and more. Does anyone have any experience using it?
-Lars On Wed, 2010-04-28 at 22:59 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > Now I'm glad I never looked at Tango. I suggest you post this to the > newsgroup and we give up on Shoo's code. I don't empathize with the > Tango fellows keeping their precious locked because it's very difficult > to frame that action as having D's community interest at heart. To be > frank their whole motivation looks petty and political to the extreme, > particularly because it's not a rocket science library, it's a God damn > date and time routines we're talking about. > > To me there's only way out of this: define artifacts that are so much > better than Tango's, it would be impossible to them to claim we stole > from them. > > > Andrei > > On 04/28/2010 09:38 PM, Walter Bright wrote: > > One of the Tango developers called me today. There are 5 developers of > > the Tango time library, and they feel that the Phobos time lib > > submission is close enough to theirs to be considered an infringement on > > their license. The Tango license is the BSD license, which does not > > permit others changing the license, such as to Boost which is the Phobos > > license. > > > > I am not qualified to compare the two source code bases and make a legal > > determination if there is infringement or not. And quite frankly, I > > don't want to split legal hairs about it against the Tango developers' > > wishes. I've invited the Tango devs to subscribe to this mailing list, > > and I hope we can come to a resolution: > > > > 1. I think the best solution would be for Tango to relicense the time > > module under the Boost license, which would require the agreement of the > > five time module developers. Then, the Phobos version would include them > > as authors and they'd share in the copyright. > > > > 2. Next would be if the Tango developers who do agree to the Boost > > license would identify their contributions, those would get authorship & > > copyright credit, etc. Tango developers who do not agree would identify > > code they consider infringing, and that code would be removed from the > > Phobos version, and possibly reimplemented by someone who has not looked > > at the Tango version. > > > > > > The bottom line is the Tango devs should get the final say on what is > > infringing and what isn't, and we won't relicense infringing code into > > Phobos without their explicit permission. > > _______________________________________________ > > phobos mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos > _______________________________________________ > phobos mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos _______________________________________________ phobos mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
