[phobos] Tango and the new time lib

[Lars Tandle Kyllingstad]

The Boost.Date_Time library seems like a good starting point.

We could port all or parts of it to D without having to worry about
licence issues, and it seems to contain all we need and more.  Does
anyone have any experience using it?

-Lars


On Wed, 2010-04-28 at 22:59 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Now I'm glad I never looked at Tango. I suggest you post this to the 
> newsgroup and we give up on Shoo's code. I don't empathize with the 
> Tango fellows keeping their precious locked because it's very difficult 
> to frame that action as having D's community interest at heart. To be 
> frank their whole motivation looks petty and political to the extreme, 
> particularly because it's not a rocket science library, it's a God damn 
> date and time routines we're talking about.
> 
> To me there's only way out of this: define artifacts that are so much 
> better than Tango's, it would be impossible to them to claim we stole 
> from them.
> 
> 
> Andrei
> 
> On 04/28/2010 09:38 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
> > One of the Tango developers called me today. There are 5 developers of
> > the Tango time library, and they feel that the Phobos time lib
> > submission is close enough to theirs to be considered an infringement on
> > their license. The Tango license is the BSD license, which does not
> > permit others changing the license, such as to Boost which is the Phobos
> > license.
> >
> > I am not qualified to compare the two source code bases and make a legal
> > determination if there is infringement or not. And quite frankly, I
> > don't want to split legal hairs about it against the Tango developers'
> > wishes. I've invited the Tango devs to subscribe to this mailing list,
> > and I hope we can come to a resolution:
> >
> > 1. I think the best solution would be for Tango to relicense the time
> > module under the Boost license, which would require the agreement of the
> > five time module developers. Then, the Phobos version would include them
> > as authors and they'd share in the copyright.
> >
> > 2. Next would be if the Tango developers who do agree to the Boost
> > license would identify their contributions, those would get authorship &
> > copyright credit, etc. Tango developers who do not agree would identify
> > code they consider infringing, and that code would be removed from the
> > Phobos version, and possibly reimplemented by someone who has not looked
> > at the Tango version.
> >
> >
> > The bottom line is the Tango devs should get the final say on what is
> > infringing and what isn't, and we won't relicense infringing code into
> > Phobos without their explicit permission.
> > _______________________________________________
> > phobos mailing list
> > phobos at puremagic.com
> > http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
> _______________________________________________
> phobos mailing list
> phobos at puremagic.com
> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos