digitalmars.D - Clarifications on D License(s)
- Brian <Brian_member pathlink.com> Nov 26 2005
- "Walter Bright" <newshound digitalmars.com> Nov 27 2005
- Thomas Kuehne <thomas-dloop kuehne.cn> Nov 27 2005
- Brian <Brian_member pathlink.com> Nov 27 2005
- "Unknown W. Brackets" <unknown simplemachines.org> Nov 27 2005
- "Walter Bright" <newshound digitalmars.com> Nov 27 2005
- Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> Nov 27 2005
- =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> Nov 28 2005
Can someone please clarify the licensing scheme for this compiler? D is a really awesome language (been tinkering with it since 0.43), however, there seems to be some confusion about how this thing is licensed. This is what I have been able to piece together, although I am not sure of its validity: * Front-end seems to be under GPL & Artistic License * Back-end is under ??? * GDC is under GPL * Phobos is under GPL * No-Redist License on some/all of it ?? Mainly, I am concerned about this for two reasons: * my favourite distribution (Gentoo Linux) refuses to include it in their software archives (portage) claiming redist issues, and no access to versioned tarballs. * I'd like to write some open source software (possibly with D), but I want to write it with a compiler which is also free-as-in-free-speech. Can someone please clarify the licensing of this software, and possibly explain the reasoning behind why certain parts of the software (if any) are not under an OSS-compatible ( http://opensource.org/licenses/ ) licenses? Thanks a bunch!
Nov 26 2005
"Brian" <Brian_member pathlink.com> wrote in message news:dmbkhb$2d4o$1 digitaldaemon.com...Can someone please clarify the licensing scheme for this compiler? D is a
awesome language (been tinkering with it since 0.43), however, there seems
some confusion about how this thing is licensed. This is what I have been
to piece together, although I am not sure of its validity: * Front-end seems to be under GPL & Artistic License
Yes.* Back-end is under ???
The DMD back end is proprietary. However, one can use GDC which is 100% GPL.* GDC is under GPL
Yes.* Phobos is under GPL
No, it's mostly public domain or under a free redistribution copyright.* No-Redist License on some/all of it ??
No.Mainly, I am concerned about this for two reasons: * my favourite distribution (Gentoo Linux) refuses to include it in their software archives (portage) claiming redist issues,
If they'll identify the redist issues to me, I will work with them to fix it.and no access to versioned tarballs.
??* I'd like to write some open source software (possibly with D), but I
write it with a compiler which is also free-as-in-free-speech. Can someone please clarify the licensing of this software, and possibly
the reasoning behind why certain parts of the software (if any) are not
OSS-compatible ( http://opensource.org/licenses/ ) licenses? Thanks a
If someone does have a specific issue, please let me know.
Nov 27 2005
Thomas Kuehne <thomas-dloop kuehne.cn> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Walter Bright schrieb am 2005-11-27:"Brian" <Brian_member pathlink.com> wrote in message news:dmbkhb$2d4o$1 digitaldaemon.com...
<snip>Mainly, I am concerned about this for two reasons: * my favourite distribution (Gentoo Linux) refuses to include it in their software archives (portage) claiming redist issues,
If they'll identify the redist issues to me, I will work with them to fix it.and no access to versioned tarballs.
??
That is a non-issue as there are versioned zips. Several ebuilds including xcolor, cbind, achemso and charles use zips too. Thomas -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iD8DBQFDigsV3w+/yD4P9tIRAgjRAJoD4y79k+NNxVOPQnSrimKpUJTE1wCgqiF1 LMzHj1/YBFvbvNAlo96bB8Y= =oXcS -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Nov 27 2005
In article <dmc224$2moq$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter Bright says...Mainly, I am concerned about this for two reasons: * my favourite distribution (Gentoo Linux) refuses to include it in their software archives (portage) claiming redist issues,
If they'll identify the redist issues to me, I will work with them to fix it.
Awesome. I'll get in contact with their devs about it.and no access to versioned tarballs.
??
I think what they mean is that they cant find zips/tars with version strings attached. I have only been able to find dmd.zip for download, but not something that indicates the version, e.g. dmd-0.140.zip. If such a thing is already available, please direct me to it ;-) Thanks.
Nov 27 2005
Download links are here: http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html They may mean that they cannot find versioned SOURCE tarballs, which will compile (since Gentoo is a source-based distro.) Unfortunately, as mentioned, the backend for DMD is not open source. Because of this, you cannot compile from source any version of DMD you wish. This is not true with gdc (you can compile it from source), but unfortunately old versions of that do not seem to be available, as far as I can tell. This may have been what they meant. To be honest, it would be nice to be able to compile DMD (e.g., using a lib/so or something for the backend), but I understand why Walter doesn't want to do this. -[Unknown]In article <dmc224$2moq$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter Bright says...Mainly, I am concerned about this for two reasons: * my favourite distribution (Gentoo Linux) refuses to include it in their software archives (portage) claiming redist issues,
If they'll identify the redist issues to me, I will work with them to fix it.
Awesome. I'll get in contact with their devs about it.and no access to versioned tarballs.
??
I think what they mean is that they cant find zips/tars with version strings attached. I have only been able to find dmd.zip for download, but not something that indicates the version, e.g. dmd-0.140.zip. If such a thing is already available, please direct me to it ;-) Thanks.
Nov 27 2005
"Brian" <Brian_member pathlink.com> wrote in message news:dmcn4n$720$1 digitaldaemon.com...I think what they mean is that they cant find zips/tars with version
attached. I have only been able to find dmd.zip for download, but not
that indicates the version, e.g. dmd-0.140.zip. If such a thing is already available, please direct me to it ;-) Thanks.
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.140.zip
Nov 27 2005
Walter Bright wrote:"Brian" <Brian_member pathlink.com> wrote in message news:dmcn4n$720$1 digitaldaemon.com...I think what they mean is that they cant find zips/tars with version
attached. I have only been able to find dmd.zip for download, but not
that indicates the version, e.g. dmd-0.140.zip. If such a thing is already available, please direct me to it ;-) Thanks.
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.140.zip
And links to all the releases are available in the changelog: http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
Nov 27 2005
Brian wrote:Mainly, I am concerned about this for two reasons: * my favourite distribution (Gentoo Linux) refuses to include it in their software archives (portage) claiming redist issues, and no access to versioned tarballs.
This a very old issue, and has been resolved for Gentoo - a year ago ? (see http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/17651.html etc) dmd-0.121.ebuild (probably works for newer too) http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46806* I'd like to write some open source software (possibly with D), but I want to write it with a compiler which is also free-as-in-free-speech.
So just use GDC then, it's under the "free-as-in-stallman" GPL license ? DMD is not re-distributable, and doesn't come with the full source code. gdc-0.15.ebuild (probably works for newer too) http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48136Can someone please clarify the licensing of this software, and possibly explain the reasoning behind why certain parts of the software (if any) are not under an OSS-compatible ( http://opensource.org/licenses/ ) licenses? Thanks a bunch!
The above ebuild files should have license info set. dmd: LICENSE="DMD" RESTRICT="nomirror" KEYWORDS="~x86" gdc: LICENSE="GPL-2" Phobos is a part of both compilers (but is patched *differently*), and is (mostly) under either Public Domain or zlib/libpng license. See also http://prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?PhobosLicenseIssues --anders PS. For the terminally bored, here are the version-by-version diffs: http://www.algonet.se/~afb/d/diffs/ (for both of DMD and GDC)
Nov 28 2005