The Death of D. (Was Tango vs Phobos)

[Sean Kelly]

Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> "Sean Reque" wrote
>> Yigal Chripun Wrote:
>>
>>> Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
>>>> Slightly OT, and directed at this whole situation: I just sit back and
>>>> laugh.  *This* is open-source software?  *This* is the supposed 
>>>> "freedom"
>>>> and "openness" that the whole movement is about?  People bickering for 
>>>> a
>>>> _year_ over minutiae of licenses which are supposed to promote free 
>>>> use?
>>>>
>>>> What have we accomplished?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Someone once told me that the place with the most politics is academia.
>>> the professors have so little decision power that they argue (intensely)
>>> about the smallest and stupidest of things.
>>> I guess you can say the same thing here: all the code is "open" and
>>> therefore everyone argues about the smallest details left to argue about
>>> like  who's name is written on the copyright (and in what order) and
>>> stuff like that. besides, how can a person steal free code?!
>>>
>>> the problem with OSS is that it's free. if it where closed than it would
>>> be a matter of the amount of money which can be negotiated and agree 
>>> upon.
>>> OSS is free therefore the only thing that matters is one's pride and
>>> that cannot be negotiated.
>>>
>>>
>>> In this Specific case:
>>> Walter needs his name on all the Phobos code and he stated his valid
>>> reasons for it. Tango developers want their names on the Tango code and
>>> rightly so, since they wrote it. in case of a merger of those two code
>>> bases you get one joint code base but *two* teams that want their name
>>> on the code. someone has to be first.
>>>
>>> all I can say is that I hope this gets resolved soon for the benefit of
>>> everyone here.
>> If I understand correctly, this is an issue not for political reasons, but 
>> for legal and economic ones. Digital Mars as a company has to convince the 
>> corporate world that they can use the D tools offered without any legal 
>> ramifications. I do not see where pride is involved at all, at least on 
>> Walter's side. He said he has already given the Tango developers license 
>> to use re-license (Phobos?) code how they see fit, and is waiting for the 
>> same permission in return.
> 
> I don't know the details of the license that Walter gave to the Tango devs, 
> but according to Phobos' license, no explicit permission is needed as long 
> as you obey the license terms (which is pretty free in its terms)

Walter has been updating to the PD license in modules when has has some 
reason to modify them for code changes, so many modules retained a BSD 
license until recently (in fact, I think some still may).  One of the 
first things I did with Tango was to try and normalize the license 
documentation in the runtime to make things easier to deal with. 
Fortunately, since Tango is dual licensed under BSD it was easy enough 
to use a common license for everything and make sure that Walter was 
listed as the copyright owner.  I don't actually recall offhand if the 
modules are still BSD only or dual-licensed, but since Walter has given 
us rights to the code I suppose it no longer matters--with it, the 
artistic license should no longer conflict with any lingering BSD 
license requirements in Phobos.


Sean