Simple HTTP support

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2011-02-28 12:21, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> 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.

I agree, but when someone says "You shouldn't look at Tango code if you 
want to contribute to Phobos code" then someone else will ask "why?". 
Should we just respond "incompatible licenses" and leave it like that? 
I have no problem with that.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg