SHOO's time code

[Moritz Warning]

On Tue, 25 May 2010 13:12:14 +0000, Moritz Warning wrote:

> On Wed, 19 May 2010 06:45:42 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, 18 May 2010 14:10:05 -0400, Moritz Warning
>> <moritzwarning at web.de> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Tue, 18 May 2010 14:24:40 +0000, superdan wrote:
>>>
>>>> == Quote from Steven Schveighoffer (schveiguy at yahoo.com)'s article
>>>>> On Tue, 18 May 2010 09:39:12 -0400, superdan <super at dan.org> wrote:
>>>>> > guys go with boost and std.gregorian n shit. sorry shoo. tango is
>>>>> > a fucking boat anchor for d. shit.
>>>>> Having written most of the API for tango.time, I sorta like it :)  I
>>>>> really like the API that SHOO came up with based on it.  If there's
>>>>> any way to get SHOO's code into Phobos, I want to pursue that first.
>>>>> If this fails, we can go with boost.
>>>>> -Steve
>>>>
>>>> i feel ya bro. i once sorta liked a hoe with herpes.
>>>>
>>>> way i c it is simple. it's fucking dates and fucking times. wut the
>>>> fuck. ain't a fucking operating system. no matter how u dress a pig u
>>>> still call it a fucking pig. if u have da datetime functionality it
>>>> don't matter to be cute. we is wasting time sucking lars douche's
>>>> cock 2 give us permission 2 his fucking shit. fuck that shit. dis
>>>> must be da least amount of power that got to some idiot's head.
>>>
>>> Wut?
>>>
>>> Person A wrote some code and had a look at code from person B. Now
>>> person C says that A need to get permission from B so that C can use
>>> the code from A.
>>> The reason is because the license of the code written by B isn't quite
>>> compatible with the license recently chosen by C.
>>>
>>> And now you are calling B an idiot/douche for that reason?
>> 
>> Let's make it a bit clearer.  Person A *used* the code from person B,
>> and used the *documentation* of said code to write his own similar
>> library. Person A has not claimed that he looked at the source.
> I agree, that's more accurate.
> 
>> Person B claims that it is impossible to do so without actually looking
> at the
>> source, but has not yet cited any specific copying.  Person C doesn't
>> want any trouble, and just is being extra careful.
> Afaik, Person B haven't looked at the source in question but relied on
> what others said.
> I think it was a move forward in anticipation to Person Cs license
> sensibility.
> Anyway, Person B haven't hesitated when asked to give permission
> himself.
I have to correct that line, it's more like *no comment*. :/