The Death of D. (Was Tango vs Phobos)

[Steven Schveighoffer]

"Sean Kelly" wrote
> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> "Walter Bright" wrote
>>> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>
>>>> Also, I would like to know specifically what Walter needs from the 
>>>> Tango team.  What could it be that he needs that the Tango team is 
>>>> against?
>>> What specifically I'd like from the Tango team is explicit permission 
>>> for the Phobos team to go over the Tango code and be able to copy/use 
>>> whatever portions of it are necessary to get the two libraries to have a 
>>> compatible core, and to relicense those parts under the corresponding 
>>> Phobos license.
>>
>> What is wrong with giving you permission to go over a given list of files 
>> that are specifically owned by people who don't mind you using their 
>> code? This should be adequate for creating a common core, as the core 
>> modules are well separated from the user portions.  And why must they be 
>> relicensed?  I don't really understand that part (but from Sean's 
>> messages, it looks like you already have that permission).
>
> I believe the issue is fear of "taint."  In short, if Walter so much as 
> glances at a module and it turns out that one of the authors isn't someone 
> who has licensed his code to Walter then he could later accuse Walter of 
> violating his copyright simply because something in Walters code looked 
> vaguely similar.  It's why Walter has never looked at GDC, for example, 
> since he is in the business of writing compilers. Personally, I think 
> copyright law is utterly ridiculous, but what can you do.

Copyright law is not that rediculous (aside from the US DMCA).  Looking at 
code and then writing something that uses the same ideas as the code is not 
a copyright violation.  Possibly a patent violation, but that is only if 
your country has software patents (which, sadly, mine does), and you are not 
protected from patent infringements even if you *don't* look at the code. 
You don't copyright the ideas, you copyright the literal text of the code 
itself (and the exact bytes of the binary).

But in this instance, you WANT the code to be identical because you want it 
to be compatible.  Yet there should be no issue because the code is open 
source.  Many many companies use open source software and have no problems 
because they attribute credit where credit is due.  This should be no 
different.

Not looking at the Tango runtime source because some random contributor who 
has nothing to do with Tango's runtime might try to sue Walter (for what, I 
can't imagine), is sort of like not ever trying to walk for fear you might 
fall down and break an arm.  I think, after reading all this stuff, that 
Tango has minimalized the risk to a very tiny reasonable level, and it is up 
to Walter to take the steps to actually make the change possible.

The only further right that Walter gains with having Tango code in the 
public domain is to claim credit for their work.  So I tend to agree with 
those who don't want their code released as PD.

-Steve