Can we all please stop overreacting?

[Daniel Keep]

lurker wrote:
> FeepingCreature Wrote:
> 
>> Phobos1 is shit. The Tango devs know this, the Phobos devs know it. Anyone who denies it has never compared the Phobos and Tango sourcecode.
> 
> It's impossible to verify those claims because reading the Tango source might taint one's mind and after that one wouldn't be allowed to contribute any code to Phobos anymore.

Well, there are other objective means.

This is a subjective statement: but as someone who has used D
extensively over the past several years, including both Phobos and
Tango, I honestly believe that Tango is generally of a higher quality.

Except for Tango's Zip code which is an abomination and should be killed
with fire--the original author is clearly a talentless hack.

>> Your "simple" solution is never gonna happen. You're not freaking Alexander the Great, cutting the Gordian Knot. The way D2 is going is the best solution for both sides, imho; but _anything_ that prevents Tango/Phobos interop in D2, or pushes away Tango devs, or pushes away Phobos devs - should be treated as a *severe* threat to the future of the language. We *absolutely need* to present a unified front in D2. We fucked this up once already; let's not repeat that experience.
> 
> The Tango developers could have handed over all copyrights to Walter or Phobos. This would solve the licensing problems if anything needs to change later.

I don't know how many times this has to be explained.

To quote myself:

"Thirdly, the Tango maintainers have *ALREADY TRIED* to change Tango's
license.  They wanted to move to just Apache 2.0 on the basis that it
was similar enough to the AFL to allow this without too much trouble.

"The problem was that of the 50-odd contributors, there are people who
they simply couldn't get in contact with.  Without express permission,
they *CANNOT* legally change the license to something incompatible."

> Many open source projects such as MySQL do this.

(Aside: I find it somewhat amusing that you're suggesting the Tango devs
should relinquish all claim on their work; the same thing the FSF asked
for in order to include the GDB patches.)

> Instead they yearned the attribution. Which one is more important, personal fame or potential solid enterprise support? If the library isn't rocket science or doesn't cure the cancer, what value does the attribution have then?

We've already established that this is a legal issue, not one of ego.
It'd be nice if you refrained from personal attacks.

> The new Phobos licensing is altruistic, it reflects the modest
mentality of the contributors.

The Boost license still requires source to contain attribution.

Lars commented in his post that he doesn't like the binary attribution
requirement.  But he's stuck with it because of the code's heritage.

As I tried very hard to explain, this is not about attempting to
sabotage D or Phobos or, for that matter, anyone or anything.

Please, PLEASE stop with the needless rhetoric and hate.