I rewrite std.time for Phobos

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Fri, 14 May 2010 21:01:10 -0400, retard <re at tard.com.invalid> wrote:

> Thu, 13 May 2010 14:37:58 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
>
>> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>> First, I hope this can be included, it looks like very solid code.
>>> Second, if it cannot be included, I hope this does not dissuade you
>>> from contributing to Phobos for other modules.
>>
>>
>> Basically, the next time there's a suggestion of infringement from
>> anyone, I'd like a specific list of the lines of source that are
>> infringing. I don't think there's any reasonable way to deal with it
>> otherwise. It shouldn't be necessary to guess what those lines might be.
>
> You can have long lasting legal battles even without clearly specifying
> the infringing lines of code. You've probably heard of SCO (a Microsoft's
> sockpuppet company) and the claims about origins of infringing UNIX/Linux
> kernel (version 2.7) code. That's also how patent FUD works. They say
> that Linux infringes 107 instances of their intellectual property gems,
> i.e. patents.

In SCO's case, they did not want to reveal the lines because they would  
then be publishing that source without a license.  Personally, I think  
it's because they knew they had no case.

And SCO has 0 patent infringement claims in their lawsuits.

In this case, both Tango and Phobos are open source, there is no reason to  
keep secret the lines of code that are infringing.  And I don't anticipate  
that Tango or Walter are interested in having legal battles, what is there  
to gain?  I think it's reasonable that if someone from Tango or Phobos  
things there is unlicensed copying, they come forth with evidence instead  
of suspicion.

-Steve