Andrei Alexandrescu さんは書きました:
On 04/29/2010 09:39 AM, SHOO wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu さんは書きました:
Thanks! You are now a Phobos developer.
I'm happy to join member of Phobos developer!
Unfortunately you cannot commit
your changes to std.date because it infringes on Tango's license.
Andrei
Phobos was mostly public domain, which has legal problems (eg in Japan).
The boost license is the closest equivalent to public domain.
I would be interested to hear the problems of public domain, as I used the
WTFPL as an equivalent.
I'm just writing this to let everyone know that I no longer intend to have
any dealings with Tango. If anyone wants to read the reason why, I have
copied my post on the Phobos mailing list, sparked by Tango's insistence
that SHOO's time library is stealing Tango's time code. I advise
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 18:02:27 +0900, SHOO wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu さんは書きました:
On 04/29/2010 09:39 AM, SHOO wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu さんは書きました:
Thanks! You are now a Phobos developer.
I'm happy to join member of Phobos developer!
Unfortunately you cannot commit
your changes to std.date
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:02:32 -0400, Moritz Warning moritzwarn...@web.de
wrote:
have you thought about just asking the authors of the Tango code in
question?
I would imagine they would say that they only see a minor resemblance in
the api and asking wouldn't even be necessary from their point
Ok, let's clear some things up.
#0: I do not represent Tango in any official capacity.
I am posting this because I can see this situation spinning out of
control and I just want everyone to stop trying to strangle each other.
Believe it or not, we're all (ostensibly) on the same side here.
So far I've been just lurking here, but these are my 5 cents.
I think the library situation is terrible. It's not for the good of D. We
should just simple ditch Tango. It's D 1.0 only and always causing trouble. We
absolutely need support from professionals and enterprises. D is growing fast.
On 30.04.2010 15:46, lurker wrote:
So far I've been just lurking here, but these are my 5 cents.
I think the library situation is terrible. It's not for the good of D. We
should just simple ditch Tango. It's D 1.0 only and always causing trouble.
We absolutely need support from
FeepingCreature Wrote:
Phobos1 is shit. The Tango devs know this, the Phobos devs know it. Anyone
who denies it has never compared the Phobos and Tango sourcecode.
It's impossible to verify those claims because reading the Tango source might
taint one's mind and after that one wouldn't be
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:14:24 -0400, Daniel Keep
daniel.keep.li...@gmail.com wrote:
#1: Tango didn't block SHOO's code.
Kris and Lars contacted me to ask about it, and I indicated that I had
alleviated all my concerns that the code was not copied, after having
examined his code against
On 30.04.2010 16:04, lurker wrote:
The Tango developers could have handed over all copyrights to Walter or
Phobos. This would solve the licensing problems if anything needs to change
later. Many open source projects such as MySQL do this.
They could have jumped off a bridge too. Yay, no
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 07:45:23 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I feel bad for
SHOO that he was caught in the middle of this, his lib looks well
written.
Phobos and Tangos license are both chosen to be for the greatest benefit
to it's users.
That they may differ is no contradiction, the
On 30.04.2010 16:20, Moritz Warning wrote:
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 07:45:23 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I feel bad for
SHOO that he was caught in the middle of this, his lib looks well
written.
Phobos and Tangos license are both chosen to be for the greatest benefit
to it's users.
lurker wrote:
FeepingCreature Wrote:
Phobos1 is shit. The Tango devs know this, the Phobos devs know it. Anyone
who denies it has never compared the Phobos and Tango sourcecode.
It's impossible to verify those claims because reading the Tango source might
taint one's mind and after
On 30/04/10 00:39, Jesse Phillips wrote:
I'm a little surprised I didn't see this announced here, at least I can't find
it.
GDB has had the patch accepted!
http://www.llucax.com.ar/blog/blog/post/06d99f3b
It has been more than accepted, it is now in the source tree, and will
be in the 7.2
Daniel Keep wrote:
lurker wrote:
The Tango developers could have handed over all copyrights to Walter or Phobos.
This would solve the licensing problems if anything needs to change later.
I don't know how many times this has to be explained.
To quote myself:
Thirdly, the Tango maintainers
On 04/30/2010 08:55 AM, Moritz Warning wrote:
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:07:06 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:02:32 -0400, Moritz Warning
moritzwarn...@web.de wrote:
have you thought about just asking the authors of the Tango code in
question?
I would imagine they
On 04/30/2010 08:14 AM, Daniel Keep wrote:
#1: Tango didn't block SHOO's code.
I cannot find any indication that anyone representing Tango /ever/
said SHOO copied from us.
Based on what Kris has said in IRC [1] and from asking Lars, the
intent, if not the specific content, was this:
At casual
On 30.04.2010 17:10, Don wrote:
It seems very clear to me that there are Tango developers who do not
want any of their code to be used in Phobos. Which is fine, that's their
choice. But I wish they'd have the decency to say so, so that the
community stops wasting time on the issue.
So what
On 30.04.2010 17:22, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I think, given the situation, that a phone call is bound to mean
something.
Well .. what does it mean? I mean, what do you mean it means. Not saying what
you mean is just mean.
Now, could we all please stop with the personal attacks and
== Quote from Don (nos...@nospam.com)'s article
That's true, but largely irrelevant. Individual developers can make
agreements about relicensing of their personal contributions, and
stating that they're happy with their code being used in Phobos.
Walter said, basically, that since it's
On 10-04-29 10:49 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 04/29/2010 09:39 AM, SHOO wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu さんは書きました:
Thanks! You are now a Phobos developer.
I'm happy to join member of Phobos developer!
Unfortunately you cannot commit
your changes to std.date because it infringes on Tango's
On 04/30/2010 10:28 AM, FeepingCreature wrote:
On 30.04.2010 17:22, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I think, given the situation, that a phone call is bound to mean
something.
Well .. what does it mean? I mean, what do you mean it means. Not
saying what you mean is just mean.
Now, could we all
On 04/30/2010 10:46 AM, retard wrote:
Fri, 30 Apr 2010 10:22:59 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Now, could we all please stop with the personal attacks and
demonisation of the other side? This isn't a war, for Pete's sake.
You're making the situation look symmetrical. It isn't.
No,
Robert Clipsham, el 30 de abril a las 16:04 me escribiste:
On 30/04/10 00:39, Jesse Phillips wrote:
I'm a little surprised I didn't see this announced here, at least I can't
find it.
GDB has had the patch accepted!
http://www.llucax.com.ar/blog/blog/post/06d99f3b
It has been more than
Chris Wright wrote:
Walter said, basically, that since it's possible that SHOO may have used
code from Tango, Tango devs should relicense their work.
Not exactly. To rephrase, I said that since SHOO has viewed Tango's source code,
there is the appearance of impropriety. Not that there
== Quote from Chris Wright (dhase...@gmail.com)'s article
== Quote from Don (nos...@nospam.com)'s article
That's true, but largely irrelevant. Individual developers can make
agreements about relicensing of their personal contributions, and
stating that they're happy with their code being
== Quote from Gurney Halleck (gurney.hall...@dune.com)'s article
The loss is unbearable.
Yes, all the code I've ever written or will write is in those two
modules. Sad, isn't it? I'm legally required to submit all my code to
a D standard library, and that's all I could accomplish.
Daniel Keep wrote:
I won't discuss the details, but I *have* been accused of ripping off
someone else's code.
So have I, falsely, many times. Perhaps I am overly cautious about these issues,
but I feel compelled to be.
(I've also been on the other side, my game Empire was once described as
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 11:36:02 -0400, Chris Wright dhase...@gmail.com
wrote:
== Quote from Don (nos...@nospam.com)'s article
That's true, but largely irrelevant. Individual developers can make
agreements about relicensing of their personal contributions, and
stating that they're happy with
W dniu 30.04.2010 17:04, Robert Clipsham pisze:
On 30/04/10 00:39, Jesse Phillips wrote:
I'm a little surprised I didn't see this announced here, at least I
can't find it.
GDB has had the patch accepted!
http://www.llucax.com.ar/blog/blog/post/06d99f3b
It has been more than accepted, it is
== Quote from Chris Wright (dhase...@gmail.com)'s article
== Quote from Gurney Halleck (gurney.hall...@dune.com)'s article
The loss is unbearable.
Yes, all the code I've ever written or will write is in those two
modules. Sad, isn't it? I'm legally required to submit all my code to
a D
Robert Clipsham wrote:
On 30/04/10 00:39, Jesse Phillips wrote:
I'm a little surprised I didn't see this announced here, at least I can't
find it.
GDB has had the patch accepted!
http://www.llucax.com.ar/blog/blog/post/06d99f3b
It has been more than accepted, it is now in the source
Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com wrote in message
news:op.vbtz2wngeav...@localhost.localdomain...
Then all that is left is the name, Clocks is not a good name for a value
type entity. It seems more suited for a static entity that contains
clocks. You already have defined interval,
Andrei Alexandrescu seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote in message
news:hreuei$bk...@digitalmars.com...
On 04/30/2010 10:46 AM, retard wrote:
Fri, 30 Apr 2010 10:22:59 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Now, could we all please stop with the personal attacks and
demonisation of the other
Daniel Keep Wrote:
... skipped
How is that an overreaction? I entirely understand Steve. He did some work and
now because of the licensing crap another person isn't allowed even to be
inspired by Steve's code, although he doesn't mind it at all. That's why he is
frustrated and reluctant to
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
On 04/30/2010 10:46 AM, retard wrote:
Fri, 30 Apr 2010 10:22:59 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Now, could we all please stop with the personal attacks and
demonisation of the other side? This isn't a war, for Pete's sake.
You're making the situation
FeepingCreature wrote:
On 30.04.2010 17:10, Don wrote:
It seems very clear to me that there are Tango developers who do not
want any of their code to be used in Phobos. Which is fine, that's their
choice. But I wish they'd have the decency to say so, so that the
community stops wasting time on
== Quote from Gurney Halleck (gurney.hall...@dune.com)'s article
Thank god your not authoring more.
God? Leto Atreides is over there --
FeepingCreature wrote:
The quality-of-code metric seems to be universally acknowledged -
after all, druntime itself is a fork of tango core.
We think you suck, so we'll base our new standard library on your work.
You seem to be unaware of the history, and this may be leading you to
On 04/30/2010 02:01 PM, traveling mirror salesman wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
On 04/30/2010 10:46 AM, retard wrote:
Fri, 30 Apr 2010 10:22:59 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Now, could we all please stop with the personal attacks and
demonisation of the other side? This isn't a
On 30.04.2010 20:26, Gurney Halleck wrote:
== Quote from Chris Wright (dhase...@gmail.com)'s article
== Quote from Gurney Halleck (gurney.hall...@dune.com)'s article
The loss is unbearable.
Yes, all the code I've ever written or will write is in those two
modules. Sad, isn't it? I'm legally
== Quote from Don (nos...@nospam.com)'s article
FeepingCreature wrote:
The quality-of-code metric seems to be universally acknowledged -
after all, druntime itself is a fork of tango core.
We think you suck, so we'll base our new standard library on your work.
You seem to be unaware of the
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 10:12:53 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 04/30/2010 08:55 AM, Moritz Warning wrote:
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:07:06 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:02:32 -0400, Moritz Warning
moritzwarn...@web.de wrote:
have you thought about just asking
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 20:07:21 +, Moritz Warning wrote:
[..]
Has anyone bothered to ask the authors? It matters.
The authors who can be reached atm., of course. :)
On 04/30/2010 03:07 PM, Moritz Warning wrote:
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 10:12:53 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 04/30/2010 08:55 AM, Moritz Warning wrote:
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:07:06 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:02:32 -0400, Moritz Warning
moritzwarn...@web.de
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 16:11:10 -0400, Moritz Warning moritzwarn...@web.de
wrote:
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 20:07:21 +, Moritz Warning wrote:
[..]
Has anyone bothered to ask the authors? It matters.
The authors who can be reached atm., of course. :)
Nobody exactly asked me, but I think my
Andrei Alexandrescu seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote in message
news:hrfdv8$1hb...@digitalmars.com...
On 04/30/2010 03:07 PM, Moritz Warning wrote:
If it really had the you steal our code undertone you describe, then
it's quite unfortunate, but does not represent what at least most Tango
another lurker lur...@lurk.urk wrote in message
news:hrfcfi$1ea...@digitalmars.com...
== Quote from Don (nos...@nospam.com)'s article
FeepingCreature wrote:
The quality-of-code metric seems to be universally acknowledged -
after all, druntime itself is a fork of tango core.
We think you
FeepingCreature default_357-l...@yahoo.de wrote in message
news:hrfb5u$1bh...@digitalmars.com...
On 30.04.2010 20:26, Gurney Halleck wrote:
== Quote from Chris Wright (dhase...@gmail.com)'s article
== Quote from Gurney Halleck (gurney.hall...@dune.com)'s article
The loss is unbearable.
Yes,
Robert Jacques wrote:
On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 19:16:49 -0400, Gareth Charnock
gareth@gmail.com wrote:
Jérôme M. Berger wrote:
Gareth Charnock wrote:
PS: Okay so I just had a looked at the matrix and vector classes in
Ogre3D and irrlicht. Looks like they both define v*v as element wise
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
another lurker lur...@lurk.urk wrote in message
news:hrfcfi$1ea...@digitalmars.com...
== Quote from Don (nos...@nospam.com)'s article
FeepingCreature wrote:
The quality-of-code metric seems to be universally acknowledged -
after all, druntime itself is a fork of tango
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 17:23:33 -0400, Jérôme M. Berger jeber...@free.fr
wrote:
Robert Jacques wrote:
On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 19:16:49 -0400, Gareth Charnock
gareth@gmail.com wrote:
Jérôme M. Berger wrote:
Gareth Charnock wrote:
PS: Okay so I just had a looked at the matrix and vector classes
53 matches
Mail list logo
