std.xml should just go

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 18:22:21 -0500, Nick Sabalausky <a at a.a> wrote:

> "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy at yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:op.vqcns2egeav7ka at steve-laptop...
>> On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 17:53:24 -0500, David Nadlinger <see at klickverbot.at>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/3/11 11:46 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>>>> [.] If they were more open and
>>>> willing to share code, then building off of what they have and turning
>>>> it into a
>>>> range-based solution would likely make a lot of sense, but since  
>>>> that's
>>>> not the
>>>> case, we need to figure it out on our own.
>>>
>>> Just like Andrei said, I don't think this issue is worth being  
>>> discussed
>>> over and over again, but I'm curious: Did somebody actually talk
>>> o  »Tango« resp. the authors of its XML module concerning amendment for
>>> Phobos? It's needlessly fueling an »us vs. them« debate in an already
>>> small community of developers which drives me crazy.
>>
>> You are welcome to try.  I don't hold out much hope based on past.
>>
>
> The main part of the problem is that Tango modules have many developers  
> and
> *all* of the relevent contributors need to 1. be successfully contacted  
> and
> 2. give approval. That all stems purely from legal constraints (ie the
> interactions of licenses). Part two has never really been a problem, but  
> as
> was learned, part one can be a real problem.

I hate to fuel this any further, but I want to re-iterate what I have  
learned.  Please re-read my summary (titled "SHOO's Time code --  
conclusion") in the announce group.

I personally went through great lengths to satisfy 1.  It was 2 that was  
the problem.

Seeing that the same author who did not give approval to relicense the  
time code is an author of Tango's XML code, I doubt his views have changed.

-Steve