www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

D - D License ?

reply Pablo De Napoli <Pablo_member pathlink.com> writes:
Hello!

First let me say that I really like the D language, I think it is a great
development. I like the idea of a practical language for practical programmers.

I wanted to ask you what is the license of D?. I've seen that the D compiler
comes with a "license.txt" that does not allow redistribution. But on some
source files it says that it is covered by the GNU General Public License
or the artistic license. I think that the best would be if D were distributed
under a free software license (like GNU GPL) since this is the best way for
D to become popular, and this would allow all the free software comunity to
help the D development (for example, someone could make a port of the D
compiler for FreeBSD if the source code is avaliable and the license allows
to change it)

I'm very happy that now there is a version of D for Linux. First, since I'm
a Linux programmer, and second because C is closely related to Unix, and
then it is difficult to think of D as an improvent of C, if it is not avaliable
for Unix. 

It would be very nice to have a front end of the gcc for the D language, but
it seems that this port is now dead. Is someone still working on that?

Thank you, best regards





Pablo De Napoli
(Argentina)
Jun 23 2003
parent reply "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
"Pablo De Napoli" <Pablo_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:bd7mdc$1mdn$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 First let me say that I really like the D language, I think it is a great
 development. I like the idea of a practical language for practical

So do I!
 I wanted to ask you what is the license of D?. I've seen that the D

 comes with a "license.txt" that does not allow redistribution. But on some
 source files it says that it is covered by the GNU General Public License
 or the artistic license. I think that the best would be if D were

 under a free software license (like GNU GPL) since this is the best way

 D to become popular, and this would allow all the free software comunity

 help the D development (for example, someone could make a port of the D
 compiler for FreeBSD if the source code is avaliable and the license

 to change it)

Because some of the code in the D compiler is licensed, it cannot all be made GPL. However, you are free to make a fully GPL implementation of D using the GPL'd parts of it.
 It would be very nice to have a front end of the gcc for the D language,

 it seems that this port is now dead. Is someone still working on that?

All it takes is someone like you interested in working on it.
Jun 23 2003
next sibling parent reply Mark Evans <Mark_member pathlink.com> writes:
Because some of the code in the D compiler is licensed, it cannot all be
made GPL. However, you are free to make a fully GPL implementation of D
using the GPL'd parts of it.

Walter please post a web page somewhere clarifying which parts are GPL and which aren't. On the new D wiki pages? I have the D source but don't fancy examining every single file by hand. Some general guidance would help. Mark
Jun 23 2003
parent "Fabian Giesen" <rygNO SPAMgmx.net> writes:
 Walter please post a web page somewhere clarifying which parts are
 GPL and which aren't.  On the new D wiki pages?

 I have the D source but don't fancy examining every single file by
 hand.  Some general guidance would help.

The released source is only the frontend, which is completely free. The problem is the compiler backend (and probably the toolchain too). -fg
Jun 23 2003
prev sibling parent reply Karl Bochert <kbochert copper.net> writes:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 13:54:14 -0700, "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote:
 
 "Pablo De Napoli" <Pablo_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
 news:bd7mdc$1mdn$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 First let me say that I really like the D language, I think it is a great
 development. I like the idea of a practical language for practical

So do I!
 I wanted to ask you what is the license of D?. I've seen that the D

 comes with a "license.txt" that does not allow redistribution. But on some
 source files it says that it is covered by the GNU General Public License
 or the artistic license. I think that the best would be if D were

 under a free software license (like GNU GPL) since this is the best way

 D to become popular, and this would allow all the free software comunity

 help the D development (for example, someone could make a port of the D
 compiler for FreeBSD if the source code is avaliable and the license

 to change it)

Because some of the code in the D compiler is licensed, it cannot all be made GPL. However, you are free to make a fully GPL implementation of D using the GPL'd parts of it.

Is it possible to be !partly! GPL ?? Section 2B: You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. GPL is infectious! Karl Bochert
 
 It would be very nice to have a front end of the gcc for the D language,

 it seems that this port is now dead. Is someone still working on that?

All it takes is someone like you interested in working on it.

Jun 23 2003
parent reply Andy Friesen <andy ikagames.com> writes:
 Is it possible to be !partly! GPL ??
 
 Section 2B:
  You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in
part 
 contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed
 as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. 
 
 GPL is infectious!
 
 
 Karl Bochert

You're perfectly free to use the existing frontend code for any GPL application. But, any changes you make become covered by the GPL. However, if you make any changes to the frontend, Walter would be unable to reintegrate those changes into DMD, unless you agree to license the code to him under something that's not "viral" like the GPL is. (or unless Walter is willing to GPL the entire thing)
Jun 23 2003
parent reply Karl Bochert <kbochert copper.net> writes:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 20:09:20 -0700, Andy Friesen <andy ikagames.com> wrote:
 Is it possible to be !partly! GPL ??
 
 Section 2B:
  You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in
part 
 contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed
 as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. 
 
 GPL is infectious!
 
 
 Karl Bochert

You're perfectly free to use the existing frontend code for any GPL application. But, any changes you make become covered by the GPL. However, if you make any changes to the frontend, Walter would be unable to reintegrate those changes into DMD, unless you agree to license the code to him under something that's not "viral" like the GPL is. (or unless Walter is willing to GPL the entire thing)

If Walter's compiler contains ("in whole or in part") GPL'd code, then it must be licenced "as a whole" under the GPL. If you or I use it to create a new work, that too must be coverd by the GPL. Worse yet is that this applies to the libraries. If you write a D program that calls a single function in one of Walter's GPL'd libraries, that is enough to make your program GPL. There is an LGPL licence which, if applied to a library, would allow its usage in a non-GPL'd product. I would not even consider using a GPL'd product, given that I may need to feed myself one day :-) Karl Bochert
Jun 23 2003
parent reply "Fabian Giesen" <rygNO SPAMgmx.net> writes:
 If Walter's compiler contains ("in whole or in part") GPL'd code,
 then it
 must be licenced "as a whole" under the GPL.
 If you or I use it to create a new work, that too must be coverd by
 the GPL.

 Worse yet is that this applies to the libraries. If you write a D
 program that
 calls  a single function in one of Walter's GPL'd libraries, that is
 enough
 to make your program GPL.

 There is an LGPL licence which, if applied to a library, would allow
 its
 usage in a non-GPL'd product.

The libraries *aren't* GPLed. In fact, they don't contain any kind of license agreement. Furthermore, the D compiler frontend license that its sources can be treated as licensed by either the Artistic license or the GPL. The Artistic license is far less restrictive than the GPL, and among other things its not viral. I guess the GPL co-licensing is just there in the first place because Walter intends to give the OpenD people the chance to make the whole project GPL. -fg
Jun 24 2003
next sibling parent "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
"Fabian Giesen" <rygNO SPAMgmx.net> wrote in message
news:bd9rb4$1m0e$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Furthermore, the D compiler frontend license that its sources can be
 treated as licensed by either the Artistic license or the GPL. The
 Artistic license is far less restrictive than the GPL, and among other
 things its not viral. I guess the GPL co-licensing is just there in the
 first place because Walter intends to give the OpenD people the chance to
 make the whole project GPL.

That's right.
Jun 24 2003
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Karl Bochert <kbochert copper.net> writes:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 17:42:12 +0200, "Fabian Giesen" <rygNO SPAMgmx.net> wrote:
 If Walter's compiler contains ("in whole or in part") GPL'd code,
 then it
 must be licenced "as a whole" under the GPL.
 If you or I use it to create a new work, that too must be coverd by
 the GPL.

 Worse yet is that this applies to the libraries. If you write a D
 program that
 calls  a single function in one of Walter's GPL'd libraries, that is
 enough
 to make your program GPL.

 There is an LGPL licence which, if applied to a library, would allow
 its
 usage in a non-GPL'd product.

The libraries *aren't* GPLed. In fact, they don't contain any kind of license agreement.

dont they automatically become GPL'd? If only the compiler is GPL'd, is it not aggregated with possibly internal runtime librarys which would contaminate its output?
 Furthermore, the D compiler frontend license that its sources can be
 treated as licensed by either the Artistic license or the GPL.

How does that work? Are the separate versions for the 2 licences? I know that the Artistic licence is compatible with GPL, but doesn't the GPL take precedence? I don't know how many others feel this way, but the mere mention of GPL in a piece of software says to me that the software is probably infected with the virus. Come to think of it, if an author releases any piece of GPL software, can I be sure that some other work released by him is not contaminated? The
 Artistic license is far less restrictive than the GPL, and among other
 things its not viral.

not GPL's viral nature take over?
 I guess the GPL co-licensing is just there in the
 first place because Walter intends to give the OpenD people the chance to
 make the whole project GPL.

What is 'co-licensing' anyway? Is the intention that OpenD release a GPL compiler, while Walter releases an Artistic License compiler, and the user could choose his license that way? When I download D, is there some way I should specify which license? Also I see the term "disjunctive license" Anyone know what that is? Could not Walter release D just under the Artistic License? Then OpenD could combine Walter's D with a piece of GPL code, thereby creating a work covered by GPL? I would think that Walter must either release D as GPL or not. Confused.. Karl Bochert
Jun 24 2003
next sibling parent reply Andy Friesen <andy ikagames.com> writes:
Karl Bochert wrote:
 On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 17:42:12 +0200, "Fabian Giesen" <rygNO SPAMgmx.net> wrote:
 
If Walter's compiler contains ("in whole or in part") GPL'd code,
then it
must be licenced "as a whole" under the GPL.
If you or I use it to create a new work, that too must be coverd by
the GPL.

Worse yet is that this applies to the libraries. If you write a D
program that
calls  a single function in one of Walter's GPL'd libraries, that is
enough
to make your program GPL.

There is an LGPL licence which, if applied to a library, would allow
its
usage in a non-GPL'd product.

The libraries *aren't* GPLed. In fact, they don't contain any kind of license agreement.

That seems dangerous. If they are aggregated with a GPL'd compiler dont they automatically become GPL'd? If only the compiler is GPL'd, is it not aggregated with possibly internal runtime librarys which would contaminate its output?
Furthermore, the D compiler frontend license that its sources can be
treated as licensed by either the Artistic license or the GPL.

How does that work? Are the separate versions for the 2 licences? I know that the Artistic licence is compatible with GPL, but doesn't the GPL take precedence? I don't know how many others feel this way, but the mere mention of GPL in a piece of software says to me that the software is probably infected with the virus. Come to think of it, if an author releases any piece of GPL software, can I be sure that some other work released by him is not contaminated? The
Artistic license is far less restrictive than the GPL, and among other
things its not viral.

The Artistic license is acceptable, but if it is co-licensed with GPL, does not GPL's viral nature take over?
I guess the GPL co-licensing is just there in the
first place because Walter intends to give the OpenD people the chance to
make the whole project GPL.

What is 'co-licensing' anyway? Is the intention that OpenD release a GPL compiler, while Walter releases an Artistic License compiler, and the user could choose his license that way? When I download D, is there some way I should specify which license? Also I see the term "disjunctive license" Anyone know what that is? Could not Walter release D just under the Artistic License? Then OpenD could combine Walter's D with a piece of GPL code, thereby creating a work covered by GPL? I would think that Walter must either release D as GPL or not. Confused.. Karl Bochert

The "viral" nature of the GPL is overstated sometimes. If you wrote some code, (or were given the right to) you can release that code under any license you want, to whomever you want, even if you've previously released it as GPL before.
Jun 24 2003
parent reply Karl Bochert <kbochert copper.net> writes:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 17:46:16 -0700, Andy Friesen <andy ikagames.com> wrote:
 Karl Bochert wrote:
 On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 17:42:12 +0200, "Fabian Giesen" <rygNO SPAMgmx.net> wrote:
 


 
 Confused..
 Karl Bochert
 
 
 

The "viral" nature of the GPL is overstated sometimes. If you wrote some code, (or were given the right to) you can release that code under any license you want, to whomever you want, even if you've previously released it as GPL before.

But if that code is aggregated in any way with some GPL'd code, I must use GPL. If I release identical code under GPL and another licence, then the code contains GPL notices and both versions are GPL, regardless of what I claim. My only choice is to remove all GPL licences from the other version and maintain 2 versions of the source code, and heaven help my customers if I goof. If I release some code under GPL, does not that make it GPL'd for me too? After all, I now have a piece of GPL software. In the GPL I see no exemption for the author. The fact that I have GPL'd the code allows me to un-GPL it? Still suspicious Karl Bochert
Jun 24 2003
parent reply Andy Friesen <andy ikagames.com> writes:
Karl Bochert wrote:
 On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 17:46:16 -0700, Andy Friesen <andy ikagames.com> wrote:
The "viral" nature of the GPL is overstated sometimes.  If you wrote 
some code, (or were given the right to) you can release that code under 
any license you want, to whomever you want, even if you've previously 
released it as GPL before.

But if that code is aggregated in any way with some GPL'd code, I must use GPL.

No. Only if you're linking (statically or dynamically) to GPL code. Only then. This would apply to Phobos, if it were GPL. But it's not, and I doubt it ever will be, for exactly this reason.
 If I release identical code under GPL and another licence, then the code
 contains GPL notices and both versions are GPL, regardless of what I
 claim. My only choice is to remove all  GPL licences from the other version
 and maintain 2 versions of the source code, and heaven help my customers
 if I goof.

You still own the code, and are free to relicense the code to them at will. One phone call is all it would take to resolve such a disaster. :)
 If I release some code under GPL, does not that make it GPL'd for me too?
 After all, I now have a piece of GPL software. In the GPL I see no
 exemption for the author.

No, you are the copyright holder, you are *licensing* the code to others. Those others are bound by the agreement, in exchange for the use of your code. By the same token, they are free to ask that a new agreement be made.
 The fact that I have GPL'd the code allows me to un-GPL it?

More like the fact that you are the sole copyright holder (or all the copyright holders are in agreement). You are still completely free to license your property as you see fit. The GPL can't undermine copyright law, especially since it derives much of its strength from it.
Jun 24 2003
parent reply Mark Evans <Mark_member pathlink.com> writes:
Worth considering is the OpenOffice Joint Copyright Agreement model for
contributions to Phobos and D.  That arrangement vastly simplifies the
legalities of license management and avoids the kind of mess that Mozilla got
itself into.
http://www.openoffice.org/contributing.html

Independent of copyright ownership issues, dual licensing is superfluous.  Any
loose, BSDish license qualifies as GPL-compatible.  There is no need to add
complexity.  Here is a list.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses

Walter - thank you for being open to as many philosophical camps as possible on
the licensing issue.

Mark


Andy Friesen says...
No.  Only if you're linking (statically or dynamically) to GPL code. 
Only then.  This would apply to Phobos, if it were GPL.  But it's not, 
and I doubt it ever will be, for exactly this reason.


More like the fact that you are the sole copyright holder (or all the 
copyright holders are in agreement).  You are still completely free to 
license your property as you see fit.

The GPL can't undermine copyright law, especially since it derives much 
of its strength from it.

Jun 24 2003
next sibling parent reply "Luna Kid" <lunakid neuropolis.org> writes:
 Independent of copyright ownership issues, dual licensing is superfluous.  Any
 loose, BSDish license qualifies as GPL-compatible.

You mean not actually GPL-compatible but "GPL-able" (suitable for redistribution under GPL)? Sz.
Jun 25 2003
parent Ilya Minkov <midiclub 8ung.at> writes:
There is a whole class of (open-source) licenses, which don't qualify as 
GPL-compatible, because codee licensed with these cannot be used in GPL 
projects due to certain requierements stated in GPL.

e.g. the old BSD license doesn't, since it requieres mentioning the 
author of the code in the final product, and many others don't due to 
some minor subtleties, or distribution limitations and somesuch.

I believe the new BSD license is quite simple and good, it's compatible 
to GPL and to almost any other license. Well, as opposed to GPL it 
offers one no protection whatsoever...

-i.

Luna Kid wrote:
 You mean not actually GPL-compatible but "GPL-able"
 (suitable for redistribution under GPL)?
 
 Sz.

Jun 25 2003
prev sibling parent Mark T <Mark_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <bdbgdp$17m1$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Mark Evans says...
Worth considering is the OpenOffice Joint Copyright Agreement model for
contributions to Phobos and D.  That arrangement vastly simplifies the
legalities of license management and avoids the kind of mess that Mozilla got
itself into.
http://www.openoffice.org/contributing.html

Independent of copyright ownership issues, dual licensing is superfluous.  Any
loose, BSDish license qualifies as GPL-compatible.  There is no need to add
complexity.  Here is a list.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses

It seems that Walter should release the front end only under the Artistic license so there would be no GPL confusion and potential legal issues. The bottom line is that Walter is encouraging D to be a open language as opposed to a closed language like Delphi. I hope D is quite successful and Walter can make a few bucks from it.
Jun 27 2003
prev sibling parent "Fabian Giesen" <rygNO SPAMgmx.net> writes:
 That seems dangerous. If they are aggregated with a GPL'd compiler
 dont they automatically become GPL'd?

No, of course not. The libraries are seperate pieces of software that don't have anything to do with the actual compiler. If the compiler would depend on the runtime libraries to work, that would be another issue, but as-is the runtime libraries are basically just data files used by the linker, as far as licensing goes anyway. -fg
Jun 25 2003
prev sibling parent "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
"Fabian Giesen" <rygNO SPAMgmx.net> wrote in message
news:bd9rb4$1m0e$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 The libraries *aren't* GPLed. In fact, they don't contain any kind of
 license agreement.

They deliberately are not GPLed so people can make commercial non-GPL apps with D.
Jun 24 2003