The Death of D. (Was Tango vs Phobos)

[Sean Kelly]

== Quote from Steven Schveighoffer (schveiguy at yahoo.com)'s article
> "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.

For what it's worth, if having compatible runtimes is the only issue then I do
maintain a "standard" of sorts that outlines the public interfaces the runtime
libraries must provide:

http://dsource.org/projects/tango/wiki/LibraryIntegrationGuide

I've mentioned this to Walter et al. in the past, but no one seemed interested.
Can't say I understand the reasoning, but what can you do.


Sean