www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Any license issues with DMD programs compiled for Mac OS X?

reply "Tony" <ignorethis nowhere.com> writes:
I noticed that the Gnu D Compiler is (predictably) covered under the GPL.

While I realise that the license of the compiler itself shouldn't affect the 
license of the code it produces, are there any other issues which might 
force your compiled D code to be covered under the GPL?  Or under any 
license other than what the author chooses?

For example, might it add some GPLed library functions to the runtime (thus 
make your code a derived work and forcing the adoption of a GPL license?)

Tony
Melbourne, Australia
tonysZ-mailboxZ hotmailZ.com  (remove the Zs) 
Feb 20 2006
next sibling parent reply =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:
Tony wrote:

 I noticed that the Gnu D Compiler is (predictably) covered under the GPL.

It uses large parts of gcc and g++, so this is something of a necessity. DMD (the frontend) is under a "Dual" license of both GPL and Artistic, while GDC (the adapation of the frontend to GCC) is under the GPL only.
 While I realise that the license of the compiler itself shouldn't affect the 
 license of the code it produces, are there any other issues which might 
 force your compiled D code to be covered under the GPL?  Or under any 
 license other than what the author chooses?
 
 For example, might it add some GPLed library functions to the runtime (thus 
 make your code a derived work and forcing the adoption of a GPL license?)

The Phobos library is zlib/png license*, and the C runtime under LGPL, so there should be no such GPL issues... Then again, I am not a lawyer. But it shouldn't be different from using say C or C++, on Mac OS X ? --anders * for the most part, see http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?PhobosLicenseIssues
Feb 20 2006
parent reply "Tony" <ignorethis nowhere.com> writes:
"Anders F Björklund" <afb algonet.se> wrote in message 
news:dteg3q$smm$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Tony wrote:

 I noticed that the Gnu D Compiler is (predictably) covered under the GPL.

It uses large parts of gcc and g++, so this is something of a necessity. DMD (the frontend) is under a "Dual" license of both GPL and Artistic, while GDC (the adapation of the frontend to GCC) is under the GPL only.
 While I realise that the license of the compiler itself shouldn't affect 
 the license of the code it produces, are there any other issues which 
 might force your compiled D code to be covered under the GPL?  Or under 
 any license other than what the author chooses?

 For example, might it add some GPLed library functions to the runtime 
 (thus make your code a derived work and forcing the adoption of a GPL 
 license?)

The Phobos library is zlib/png license*, and the C runtime under LGPL, so there should be no such GPL issues... Then again, I am not a lawyer.

Thanks for the information. If the C runtime is under LGPL, does this mean that compiled code is a derivative work of the C runtime and thus also has to be placed under LGPL or GPL? Or am I totally misunderstanding the situation ?
 But it shouldn't be different from using say C or C++, on Mac OS X ?

 --anders

 * for the most part, see
   http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?PhobosLicenseIssues 

Feb 21 2006
parent =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:
Tony wrote:

 If the C runtime is under LGPL, does this mean that compiled code is a 
 derivative work of the C runtime and thus also has to be placed under LGPL 
 or GPL?  Or am I totally misunderstanding the situation ?

Actually I meant that as a *good* thing :-) (glibc being LGPL, not GPL) Anyway, on Mac OS X it should use Apple's system libraries and C library so there should be no GPL components in the resulting program binary... At least that is how the gdcmac builds are intended, targetting Apple's. (it's also possible to build a fully GNU version of GCC/G++/GDC, but...) --anders
Feb 21 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent AgentOrange <AgentOrange_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <dte9v0$lh2$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Tony says...
I noticed that the Gnu D Compiler is (predictably) covered under the GPL.

While I realise that the license of the compiler itself shouldn't affect the 
license of the code it produces, are there any other issues which might 
force your compiled D code to be covered under the GPL?  Or under any 
license other than what the author chooses?

For example, might it add some GPLed library functions to the runtime (thus 
make your code a derived work and forcing the adoption of a GPL license?)

Tony
Melbourne, Australia
tonysZ-mailboxZ hotmailZ.com  (remove the Zs) 

Absolutely not, that would kill any real future for D
Feb 21 2006
prev sibling parent "Walter Bright" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
"Tony" <ignorethis nowhere.com> wrote in message 
news:dte9v0$lh2$1 digitaldaemon.com...
I noticed that the Gnu D Compiler is (predictably) covered under the GPL.

 While I realise that the license of the compiler itself shouldn't affect 
 the license of the code it produces, are there any other issues which 
 might force your compiled D code to be covered under the GPL?  Or under 
 any license other than what the author chooses?

 For example, might it add some GPLed library functions to the runtime 
 (thus make your code a derived work and forcing the adoption of a GPL 
 license?)

There are no GPLed library functions in the D runtime library Phobos, and there won't be. Phobos code will be either public domain or copyrighted and free for any use whatsoever.
Feb 20 2006