Simple HTTP support

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Monday 28 February 2011 01:59:41 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2011-02-28 01:30, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > On Sunday 27 February 2011 08:01:36 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> >> On 2/27/11 8:50 AM, Jonas Drewsen wrote:
> >>> On 27/02/11 11.47, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> >>>> I you want to contribute to Phobos do NOT look at the Tango sources.
> >>>> The Phobos developers don't like it.
> >>> 
> >>> Okey. That is indeed nice to know. But what is it that they don't like.
> >>> The source code, the design, the API...? It's good to know what not to
> >>> do if something is to be included in phobos :)
> >>> 
> >>> /Jonas
> >> 
> >> WTF? Jacob, for Pete's sake please stop spreading FUD and fomenting
> >> another interminable discussion. This is not about liking!
> > 
> > True. And we _don't_ want another discussion about this. But the point
> > still stands that we'd prefer that anyone looking to work on a
> > submission for Phobos not look at the corresponding Tango API or source
> > code. Misunderstandings and licensing issues are possible, and we don't
> > want to get into that again. It has gotten blown out of proportion in
> > the past, and I think that a large portion of the posters around here
> > don't understand what really happened (hence the FUD - I very much doubt
> > that Jacob is purposely misinterpreting what happened).
> > 
> > So, we don't want to get into that again (though unfortunately, it's
> > bound to come up just about any time someone mentions looking at Tango),
> > but it _is_ true that it's just cleaner for those working on Phobos to
> > avoid Tango. That way, misunderstandings (on both sides) can be avoided,
> > and we won't have any potential licensing issues.
> > 
> > - Jonathan M Davis
> 
> I can't find that post by Andrei, neither in my newsgroup reader
> application or the web interface. Has someone removed that post?
> 
> I don't understand what all the noise is about. I just tried to warn him
> BEFORE he starts looking at the Tango sources. Then starts implementing
> code that could be interpreted as based on the Tango source and hoping
> to contribute that to Phobos.
> 
> The Tango developers aren't happy about including Tango source code into
> Phobos. Because of that, Phobos developers don't want you to look at
> Tango code and then contributing similar code to Phobos, correct me if
> I'm wrong.
> 
> Actually I don't care if it's the Tango or Phobos developers that don't
> like it.

I believe that Andrei was displeased with you saying that the Tango developers 
"don't like it," since that's not necessarily true. The fact that you were 
pointing out that anyone looking to submit code to Phobos shouldn't be looking 
at Tango's API or source code is just fine.

As I understand it, essentially what happened before was that a single Tango 
developer expressed concern that someone might think that there was license 
infringement on SHOO's part in what he did with the time code that he was 
working on, because he had seen Tango's API (and possibly code) previously (and 
his API might have been similar - I'm not sure). The Tango developers were never 
up in arms about it or getting mad at us or anything of the sort. _One_ 
developer expressed concern about someone thinking that infringement occurred. 
That's all. However, it got blown out of proportion by the folks on this 
newsgroup with them getting mad at the Tango developers. Andrei (and others) are 
sick of this coming up again and again - particularly when it frequently turns 
into an anti-Tango or anti-Tango developer debate.

As I understand it, it _is_ true that there are Tango developers who don't want 
their code in Phobos, but I don't believe that they've ever been nasty about it 
as some of the posters here have thought. Tango _does_ have a different license 
than Phobos, and the Tango developers have every right to share their code or 
not. So, you can't copy code from there unless you wrote it in the first place, 
or if you get permission to do so from the developers who wrote it (which isn't 
necessarily easy).

The decision was made that there was no need to look at Tango or copy its code 
or API and that we didn't want even the possibility of conflict between the two 
communities if it could be reasonably avoided. So, for the most part, Phobos 
developers just don't look at the Tango API or code, and we don't want folks who 
are looking to submit code to Phobos to be looking at Tango's API or code. It's 
just simpler that we. We have nothing against the Tango developers or what 
they're doing. As I understand it, they've written some great code, and as far 
as I'm concerned, all the more power to them. But we don't want to risk any 
conflict or misunderstandings between the two communities, so those developing 
Phobos code avoid Tango.

Really, I don't think that there was all that much wrong with what you said 
(it's not like you were explicitly trying to give misinformation), but there are 
those (Andrei included) who are very sensitive to and/or sick of this issue and 
don't want it blowing up again. So, Andrei took offense to how your response was 
worded.

- Jonathan M Davis


P.S. Everyone, please do _not_ say anything in this thread about the whole Tango 
licensing issue unless you have something truly constructive to say. We do _not_ 
need further debate, arguments, or flaming on this topic (and I'm not specifically 
singling anyone out when I say that; we just want to avoid any more problems 
about this topic).

And in the future, while we _should_ point out to anyone that asks (or that 
obviously needs to be told) that those developing for Phobos shouldn't be 
looking at Tango's API or code because of the difference in licenses between 
Tango and Phobos, we should _not_ be going into whatever issues have or haven't 
occurred with the Tango team or this newsgroup in the past. This is a sensitive 
topic which has created too much flaming and discontent around here in the past. 
We don't copy Tango code, because it has a different license, not because of any 
problems with the Tango developers.