www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - GPL version issue

reply Gregor Richards <Richards codu.org> writes:
The code in dmd/src/dmd is licensed as follows:

// License for redistribution is by either the Artistic License
// in artistic.txt, or the GNU General Public License in gnu.txt.

This is problematic because:

1) There is no file named gnu.txt
2) The file gpl.txt includes the ancient GPL v1, and never is it 
explicitly stated that you may use later versions.

(By the way, Walter, do you use Perl? ;) )

This is a problem because it may be implied that you can only release 
the DMD frontend under version 1 one of the license, in which case I'm 
fairly sure that GDC isn't even legal :).  I'm sure the intention was to 
release it under any version of the GPL.

I think the license text should be changed to:

// License for redistribution is by either the Artistic License
// in artistic.txt, or the GNU General Public License; either
// version 1 (included in gpl.txt) or (at your option) any later
// version.


Opinions?

  - Gregor Richards
May 01 2006
next sibling parent reply Brad Roberts <braddr puremagic.com> writes:
On Mon, 1 May 2006, Gregor Richards wrote:

 The code in dmd/src/dmd is licensed as follows:
 
 // License for redistribution is by either the Artistic License
 // in artistic.txt, or the GNU General Public License in gnu.txt.
 
 This is problematic because:
 
 1) There is no file named gnu.txt
 2) The file gpl.txt includes the ancient GPL v1, and never is it explicitly
 stated that you may use later versions.
 
 (By the way, Walter, do you use Perl? ;) )
 
 This is a problem because it may be implied that you can only release the DMD
 frontend under version 1 one of the license, in which case I'm fairly sure
 that GDC isn't even legal :).  I'm sure the intention was to release it under
 any version of the GPL.

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I intend to play one on tv, but given the dual license, even if gpl1 and 2 are incompatible, artistic and gpl2 aren't, so there's nothing illegal about gd.c. Later, Brad
May 01 2006
parent Gregor Richards <Richards codu.org> writes:
Brad Roberts wrote:
 On Mon, 1 May 2006, Gregor Richards wrote:
 
 
The code in dmd/src/dmd is licensed as follows:

// License for redistribution is by either the Artistic License
// in artistic.txt, or the GNU General Public License in gnu.txt.

This is problematic because:

1) There is no file named gnu.txt
2) The file gpl.txt includes the ancient GPL v1, and never is it explicitly
stated that you may use later versions.

(By the way, Walter, do you use Perl? ;) )

This is a problem because it may be implied that you can only release the DMD
frontend under version 1 one of the license, in which case I'm fairly sure
that GDC isn't even legal :).  I'm sure the intention was to release it under
any version of the GPL.

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I intend to play one on tv, but given the dual license, even if gpl1 and 2 are incompatible, artistic and gpl2 aren't, so there's nothing illegal about gd.c. Later, Brad

According to GNU's license list (read: FLAME WAR TIME WOOOH DFSG vs GNU vs OSI), the original artistic license is neither compatible with the GPL nor even concrete enough to be considered a Free Software license. - Gregor Richards Reference: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
May 01 2006
prev sibling parent reply =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:
Gregor Richards wrote:

 The code in dmd/src/dmd is licensed as follows:

 // License for redistribution is by either the Artistic License
 // in artistic.txt, or the GNU General Public License in gnu.txt.
 
 This is problematic because:
 
 1) There is no file named gnu.txt
 2) The file gpl.txt includes the ancient GPL v1, and never is it 
 explicitly stated that you may use later versions.

However, the readme.txt has the right file name at least: "These sources are free, they are redistributable and modifiable under the terms of the GNU General Public License (attached as gpl.txt), or the Artistic License (attached as artistic.txt)." So I guess Walter just made 83 typos, or something... :-) (and you must be the first one that have noticed it ?)
 This is a problem because it may be implied that you can only release 
 the DMD frontend under version 1 one of the license, in which case I'm 
 fairly sure that GDC isn't even legal :).  I'm sure the intention was to 
 release it under any version of the GPL.

GDC uses version 2 or later, as specified in the README: "This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version." Maybe DMD gpl.txt could be changed use the same one, i.e. v2 ? The latest original is at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.txt
 I think the license text should be changed to:
 
 // License for redistribution is by either the Artistic License
 // in artistic.txt, or the GNU General Public License; either
 // version 1 (included in gpl.txt) or (at your option) any later
 // version.

GPL v2 would be nice (same as GCC), if not allowing for the new v3... There is some controversy over v3, for instance Linux uses v2 only ? But a good start would be: 1) updating DMD sources 2) updating gpl.txt --anders
May 01 2006
parent =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jari-Matti_M=E4kel=E4?= <jmjmak utu.fi.invalid> writes:
Anders F Björklund wrote:
 Gregor Richards wrote:
 This is a problem because it may be implied that you can only release
 the DMD frontend under version 1 one of the license, in which case I'm
 fairly sure that GDC isn't even legal :).  I'm sure the intention was
 to release it under any version of the GPL.

GDC uses version 2 or later, as specified in the README: "This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version." Maybe DMD gpl.txt could be changed use the same one, i.e. v2 ? The latest original is at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.txt

I guess it would be quite safe to convert v1 -> v2. There are not many big projects left that still use GPL v1. Now that GPL v2 is over 15 years old there must have been a good reason to use GPL v1 in the first place.
 I think the license text should be changed to:

 // License for redistribution is by either the Artistic License
 // in artistic.txt, or the GNU General Public License; either
 // version 1 (included in gpl.txt) or (at your option) any later
 // version.

GPL v2 would be nice (same as GCC), if not allowing for the new v3... There is some controversy over v3, for instance Linux uses v2 only ?

If Walter solely owns the copyright to the sources, it should be no problem to license them under v2 only. It would be quite easy to convert to GPL v3 in the future, if needs be. -- Jari-Matti
May 02 2006