• Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> Jul 01 2008
• John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> Jul 01 2008
• Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight gmail.com> Jul 01 2008
• Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> Jul 01 2008
• John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> Jul 01 2008
• Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight gmail.com> Jul 02 2008
• John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> Jul 02 2008
• Christopher Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> Jul 02 2008
• John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> Jul 02 2008
• Don <nospam nospam.com.au> Jul 03 2008
• John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> Jul 03 2008
• BCS <ao pathlink.com> Jul 03 2008
• BCS <ao pathlink.com> Jul 03 2008
• Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> Jul 03 2008
• Don <nospam nospam.com.au> Jul 03 2008
• BCS <ao pathlink.com> Jul 05 2008
• davidl <davidl 126.com> Jul 01 2008
• nazo <lovesyao gmail.com> Jul 02 2008
• Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight gmail.com> Jul 02 2008
• "Koroskin Denis" <2korden gmail.com> Jul 02 2008
• "Simen Kjaeraas" <simen.kjaras gmail.com> Jul 02 2008
• Mark Sanders <mark cyanox.nl> Jul 02 2008
• BCS <ao pathlink.com> Jul 02 2008
• BLS <nanali nospam-wanadoo.fr> Jul 04 2008
• JAnderson <ask me.com> Jul 05 2008
• "Manfred_Nowak" <svv1999 hotmail.com> Jul 12 2008
• Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> Jul 12 2008
• "Manfred_Nowak" <svv1999 hotmail.com> Jul 13 2008

Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:

It's been talked about before, but exactly how much money do the people 
who own the copyright to DMD's backend want in order to make it freely 
available freely -- as at least a lib?  It's hard to believe anyone 
would appraise that thing with a high dollar value given its less than 
stellar optimization abilities, and since everyone knows you can't make 
much money off dev tools these days anyway.

I'd happily chip in $100 US if it meant finally having an official D 
compiler that anyone can recompile for themselves just by typing "make dmd".

Or is it more a matter of not being able to find the copyright holders 
in question to ask them?  If so, give us the names and whatever info you 
have, and I bet someone will be able to track 'em down.

--bb

John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:

Hello Bill,

 It's been talked about before, but exactly how much money do the
 people who own the copyright to DMD's backend want in order to make it
 freely available freely -- as at least a lib?  It's hard to believe
 anyone would appraise that thing with a high dollar value given its
 less than stellar optimization abilities, and since everyone knows you
 can't make much money off dev tools these days anyway.
 
 I'd happily chip in $100 US if it meant finally having an official D
 compiler that anyone can recompile for themselves just by typing "make
 dmd".
 
 Or is it more a matter of not being able to find the copyright holders
 in question to ask them?  If so, give us the names and whatever info
 you have, and I bet someone will be able to track 'em down.
 
 --bb
 



I'd give another $100.

-JJR

Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight gmail.com> writes:

John Reimer Wrote:

 Hello Bill,
 
 It's been talked about before, but exactly how much money do the
 people who own the copyright to DMD's backend want in order to make it
 freely available freely -- as at least a lib?  It's hard to believe
 anyone would appraise that thing with a high dollar value given its
 less than stellar optimization abilities, and since everyone knows you
 can't make much money off dev tools these days anyway.
 
 I'd happily chip in $100 US if it meant finally having an official D
 compiler that anyone can recompile for themselves just by typing "make
 dmd".
 
 Or is it more a matter of not being able to find the copyright holders
 in question to ask them?  If so, give us the names and whatever info
 you have, and I bet someone will be able to track 'em down.
 
 --bb
 


 
 I'd give another $100.
 
 -JJR


"Economic Stimulus Act" FTW.

Seriously, though, there's GDC. Maybe LLVMDC, too. So while I wouldn't 
say no to a compiling lib of the backend, is it really needed?

Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:

Robert Fraser wrote:
 John Reimer Wrote:
 
 Hello Bill,

 It's been talked about before, but exactly how much money do the
 people who own the copyright to DMD's backend want in order to make it
 freely available freely -- as at least a lib?  It's hard to believe
 anyone would appraise that thing with a high dollar value given its
 less than stellar optimization abilities, and since everyone knows you
 can't make much money off dev tools these days anyway.

 I'd happily chip in $100 US if it meant finally having an official D
 compiler that anyone can recompile for themselves just by typing "make
 dmd".

 Or is it more a matter of not being able to find the copyright holders
 in question to ask them?  If so, give us the names and whatever info
 you have, and I bet someone will be able to track 'em down.

 --bb


 I'd give another $100.

 -JJR


 "Economic Stimulus Act" FTW.
 
 Seriously, though, there's GDC. Maybe LLVMDC, too. So while I wouldn't 
 say no to a compiling lib of the backend, is it really needed?


GDC's problem is that it is not well maintained.
LLVMDC's problem is that it just isn't there yet.

Until one of the above two situations changes, DMD will be the compiler 
I actually use.

And it's worth at least $100 to me in the mean time to be able to build 
a working version of the D compiler I actually use.  Being able to fix 
bugs for myself or with the help of the community means at least that 
much to me.

So it's not a question of whether it is "needed".  Obviously if it were 
really needed then none of us would be here on this NG.  D would have 
already failed.  It is wanted.  And the amount I want it right now is 
about $100-worth.

--bb

John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:

Hello Robert,

 John Reimer Wrote:
 
 Hello Bill,
 
 It's been talked about before, but exactly how much money do the
 people who own the copyright to DMD's backend want in order to make
 it freely available freely -- as at least a lib?  It's hard to
 believe anyone would appraise that thing with a high dollar value
 given its less than stellar optimization abilities, and since
 everyone knows you can't make much money off dev tools these days
 anyway.
 
 I'd happily chip in $100 US if it meant finally having an official D
 compiler that anyone can recompile for themselves just by typing
 "make dmd".
 
 Or is it more a matter of not being able to find the copyright
 holders in question to ask them?  If so, give us the names and
 whatever info you have, and I bet someone will be able to track 'em
 down.
 
 --bb
 


 
 -JJR
 


 
 Seriously, though, there's GDC. Maybe LLVMDC, too. So while I wouldn't
 say no to a compiling lib of the backend, is it really needed?
 



LLVMDC is only partially operational.  gdc hasn't proven that it can "keep 
up".  They are both very important projects, but having the complete dmd 
compiler means even more potential for active fixing of elusive bugs in the 
reference compiler, code generator optimization and updates for more recent 
instructions sets, improved object file format support on win32 (coff),
shared-lib 
fixes for linux(?), experimentation, improved tool support, compiler embedding, 
immediate bug hunting expeditions for library developers... and easier
distribution 
of the compiler in general -- many things that Walter doesn't have time to 
fix.  It's not likely to happen even with the economic incentive.  But having 
a completely open reference compiler can mean a lot when it comes to getting 
D adopted.  This has been one of D's major handicaps, I think, for a long 
time.

-JJR

Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight gmail.com> writes:

John Reimer Wrote:

 Hello Robert,
 
 John Reimer Wrote:
 
 Hello Bill,
 
 It's been talked about before, but exactly how much money do the
 people who own the copyright to DMD's backend want in order to make
 it freely available freely -- as at least a lib?  It's hard to
 believe anyone would appraise that thing with a high dollar value
 given its less than stellar optimization abilities, and since
 everyone knows you can't make much money off dev tools these days
 anyway.
 
 I'd happily chip in $100 US if it meant finally having an official D
 compiler that anyone can recompile for themselves just by typing
 "make dmd".
 
 Or is it more a matter of not being able to find the copyright
 holders in question to ask them?  If so, give us the names and
 whatever info you have, and I bet someone will be able to track 'em
 down.
 
 --bb
 


 
 -JJR
 


 
 Seriously, though, there's GDC. Maybe LLVMDC, too. So while I wouldn't
 say no to a compiling lib of the backend, is it really needed?
 


 
 LLVMDC is only partially operational.  gdc hasn't proven that it can "keep 
 up".  They are both very important projects, but having the complete dmd 
 compiler means even more potential for active fixing of elusive bugs in the 
 reference compiler, code generator optimization and updates for more recent 
 instructions sets, improved object file format support on win32 (coff),
shared-lib 
 fixes for linux(?), experimentation, improved tool support, compiler
embedding, 
 immediate bug hunting expeditions for library developers... and easier
distribution 
 of the compiler in general -- many things that Walter doesn't have time to 
 fix.  It's not likely to happen even with the economic incentive.  But having 
 a completely open reference compiler can mean a lot when it comes to getting 
 D adopted.  This has been one of D's major handicaps, I think, for a long 
 time.
 
 -JJR


It appears I have been officially "pwned" here. You & Bill are right; 
GDC/LLVMDC isn't sufficient.

John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:

Hello Robert,


 


 GDC/LLVMDC isn't sufficient.
 



Well, GDC or LLVMDC might have been the way to go... if Walter were
using/developing 
them as a reference compiler. :)

But that is something he apparently cannot do lest he "taint" the code.

-JJR

Christopher Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> writes:

Robert Fraser wrote:
 It appears I have been officially "pwned" here. You & Bill are right; 
 GDC/LLVMDC isn't sufficient.


Or we could politely ask Walter to switch to llvm or gcc for the backend 
for dmd. Hey, he actually changed opEquals to bool...

John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:

Hello Christopher,

 Robert Fraser wrote:
 
 It appears I have been officially "pwned" here. You & Bill are right;
 GDC/LLVMDC isn't sufficient.
 


 backend for dmd. Hey, he actually changed opEquals to bool...
 



Similar has been suggested on several occasions.  If you take a peek at
previous 
postings in this group on the topic you will see his answer which invariably 
is "no" with a short explanation about "tainting" (or something similar). 
 He doesn't want to look at any other compiler code (opensource or otherwise). 
 It's a self-imposed rule to simplify his defense in any potential legal 
disputes, as I understand it, since he appears to still be in the compiler 
business.

This is completely understandable, but I think it hampers D's progress to 
some degree.  I'm not so sure we can ever get the backend by slapping down 
some money, but I'd agree that it would be great if something were done... 
moving to an opensource backend of one sort or another would be extremely 
good for D.

Whether or not our request is successful, the statement made here (about 
the donation) at least expresses how important it is to this community to 
see an active opensource backend as part of the reference compiler.  But 
we probably shouldn't get our hopes up too much: the issue hasn't budged 
one iota for quite a long time.  Yet, you never know. :)

-JJR

Don <nospam nospam.com.au> writes:

John Reimer wrote:
 Hello Christopher,
 
 Robert Fraser wrote:

 It appears I have been officially "pwned" here. You & Bill are right;
 GDC/LLVMDC isn't sufficient.


 backend for dmd. Hey, he actually changed opEquals to bool...


 
 Similar has been suggested on several occasions.  If you take a peek at 
 previous postings in this group on the topic you will see his answer 
 which invariably is "no" with a short explanation about "tainting" (or 
 something similar). He doesn't want to look at any other compiler code 
 (opensource or otherwise). It's a self-imposed rule to simplify his 
 defense in any potential legal disputes, as I understand it, since he 
 appears to still be in the compiler business.
 
 This is completely understandable, but I think it hampers D's progress 
 to some degree.  I'm not so sure we can ever get the backend by slapping 
 down some money, but I'd agree that it would be great if something were 
 done... moving to an opensource backend of one sort or another would be 
 extremely good for D.
 
 Whether or not our request is successful, the statement made here (about 
 the donation) at least expresses how important it is to this community 
 to see an active opensource backend as part of the reference compiler.  
 But we probably shouldn't get our hopes up too much: the issue hasn't 
 budged one iota for quite a long time.  Yet, you never know. :)


IIRC, earlier this year, Walter said he was still trying to get it 
released, and did expect to be successful eventually.

I doubt that the problem has much to do with money. Murky legal issues 
could well be a major part of it. I recently got some code from my 
university days open-sourced, and it was extremely painful and slow -- 
even after getting in-principle agreement from *everyone* who could 
possibly be a copyright owner, none of them were certain that they had 
authority to approve its release.

John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:

Hello Don,


 IIRC, earlier this year, Walter said he was still trying to get it
 released, and did expect to be successful eventually.



Hmmmm, I must have missed or forgotten that post.  That's better news than 
I expected.


 I doubt that the problem has much to do with money. Murky legal issues
 could well be a major part of it. I recently got some code from my
 university days open-sourced, and it was extremely painful and slow --
 even after getting in-principle agreement from *everyone* who could
 possibly be a copyright owner, none of them were certain that they had
 authority to approve its release.
 



I think a few (now) opensource projects have been that way.  OpenWatcom, 
I think, had a long process of source cleanup and legal preparation/licensing 
before they could release the code.  It's probably the same with Java and 
OpenSolaris to some degree.

-JJR

BCS <ao pathlink.com> writes:

Reply to don,

 IIRC, earlier this year, Walter said he was still trying to get it
 released, and did expect to be successful eventually.
 
 I doubt that the problem has much to do with money. 


The money still works as a "statement of interest" of sorts and could be 
used as "incentive" to any reluctant parties.

BCS <ao pathlink.com> writes:

Reply to John,

 Hello Christopher,
 
 Robert Fraser wrote:
 
 It appears I have been officially "pwned" here. You & Bill are
 right; GDC/LLVMDC isn't sufficient.
 


 backend for dmd. Hey, he actually changed opEquals to bool...
 


 at previous
 postings in this group on the topic you will see his answer which
 invariably
 is "no" with a short explanation about "tainting" (or something
 similar).
 He doesn't want to look at any other compiler code (opensource or
 otherwise).
 It's a self-imposed rule to simplify his defense in any potential
 legal
 disputes, as I understand it, since he appears to still be in the
 compiler
 business.
 
 This is completely understandable, but I think it hampers D's progress
 to some degree.  I'm not so sure we can ever get the backend by
 slapping down some money, but I'd agree that it would be great if
 something were done... moving to an opensource backend of one sort or
 another would be extremely good for D.
 
 Whether or not our request is successful, the statement made here
 (about the donation) at least expresses how important it is to this
 community to see an active opensource backend as part of the reference
 compiler.  But we probably shouldn't get our hopes up too much: the
 issue hasn't budged one iota for quite a long time.  Yet, you never
 know. :)
 


We could do it in reverse; compile the GCC backend as a lib, and ship that 
and the minimal headers to Walter and then he could develop DMD with that 
without ever seeing a line of (executable) GCC code. He might even be able 
to build and ship both GCC and DMC versions of DMD. 

Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:

BCS wrote:

 We could do it in reverse; compile the GCC backend as a lib, and ship 
 that and the minimal headers to Walter and then he could develop DMD 
 with that without ever seeing a line of (executable) GCC code. He might 
 even be able to build and ship both GCC and DMC versions of DMD.
 


But GCC is GPL so merely linking against it automatically taints the 
code.  Or is the current front end license GPL compatible?

--bb

Don <nospam nospam.com.au> writes:

Bill Baxter wrote:
 BCS wrote:
 
 We could do it in reverse; compile the GCC backend as a lib, and ship 
 that and the minimal headers to Walter and then he could develop DMD 
 with that without ever seeing a line of (executable) GCC code. He 
 might even be able to build and ship both GCC and DMC versions of DMD.


 But GCC is GPL so merely linking against it automatically taints the 
 code.  Or is the current front end license GPL compatible?
 
 --bb

BCS <ao pathlink.com> writes:

Reply to Bill,

 BCS wrote:
 
 We could do it in reverse; compile the GCC backend as a lib, and ship
 that and the minimal headers to Walter and then he could develop DMD
 with that without ever seeing a line of (executable) GCC code. He
 might even be able to build and ship both GCC and DMC versions of
 DMD.
 


 code.  Or is the current front end license GPL compatible?
 
 --bb
 


even so, wouldn't a .so/.dll get around that?

davidl <davidl 126.com> writes:

在 Wed, 02 Jul 2008 11:51:01 +0800，Bill Baxter  
<dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> 写道:

 Robert Fraser wrote:
 John Reimer Wrote:

 Hello Bill,

 It's been talked about before, but exactly how much money do the
 people who own the copyright to DMD's backend want in order to make it
 freely available freely -- as at least a lib?  It's hard to believe
 anyone would appraise that thing with a high dollar value given its
 less than stellar optimization abilities, and since everyone knows you
 can't make much money off dev tools these days anyway.

 I'd happily chip in $100 US if it meant finally having an official D
 compiler that anyone can recompile for themselves just by typing "make
 dmd".

 Or is it more a matter of not being able to find the copyright holders
 in question to ask them?  If so, give us the names and whatever info
 you have, and I bet someone will be able to track 'em down.

 --bb


 I'd give another $100.

 -JJR


  Seriously, though, there's GDC. Maybe LLVMDC, too. So while I wouldn't  
 say no to a compiling lib of the backend, is it really needed?


 GDC's problem is that it is not well maintained.
 LLVMDC's problem is that it just isn't there yet.

 Until one of the above two situations changes, DMD will be the compiler  
 I actually use.

 And it's worth at least $100 to me in the mean time to be able to build  
 a working version of the D compiler I actually use.  Being able to fix  
 bugs for myself or with the help of the community means at least that  
 much to me.

 So it's not a question of whether it is "needed".  Obviously if it were  
 really needed then none of us would be here on this NG.  D would have  
 already failed.  It is wanted.  And the amount I want it right now is  
 about $100-worth.

 --bb


 From my point of view, every patches should apply to DMD frontend, so the  
community gets benefit from it.
While the backend dev kit gives the possibility of not *sending* the patch  
to DMD.
The current problem of DMD development is not every patch accepted or  
reviewed before the next DMD release.
Time & partial class is the main problem prevent me from doing some  
backend related stuff. I hope more people can get involved into this. And  
make dparser an experiment ground so people can firstly test their willing  
features in dparser.

-- 
使用 Opera 革命性的电子邮件客户程序: http://www.opera.com/mail/

nazo <lovesyao gmail.com> writes:

Also opensource backend will be needed in phobos for runtime assembler 
and runtime D compiling feature :)

Runtime generations:
C# has System.Reflection.Assembly that is runtime assembler.
Xbyak library is runtime assembler for C++.
tcc can be used as runtime C compiler.
but D?

Bill Baxter Wrote:
 It's been talked about before, but exactly how much money do the people 
 who own the copyright to DMD's backend want in order to make it freely 
 available freely -- as at least a lib?  It's hard to believe anyone 
 would appraise that thing with a high dollar value given its less than 
 stellar optimization abilities, and since everyone knows you can't make 
 much money off dev tools these days anyway.
 
 I'd happily chip in $100 US if it meant finally having an official D 
 compiler that anyone can recompile for themselves just by typing "make 
 dmd".
 
 Or is it more a matter of not being able to find the copyright holders 
 in question to ask them?  If so, give us the names and whatever info you 
 have, and I bet someone will be able to track 'em down.
 
 --bb

Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight gmail.com> writes:

nazo Wrote:
 Also opensource backend will be needed in phobos for runtime assembler 
 and runtime D compiling feature :)
 
 Runtime generations:
 C# has System.Reflection.Assembly that is runtime assembler.
 Xbyak library is runtime assembler for C++.
 tcc can be used as runtime C compiler.
 but D?


IIRC, Burton Radons was able to do just that... but with the DMD as an
executable, not a lib. See:

http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D.announce&article_id=11436

"Koroskin Denis" <2korden gmail.com> writes:

On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 05:03:32 +0400, John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com>  
wrote:

 Hello Bill,

 It's been talked about before, but exactly how much money do the
 people who own the copyright to DMD's backend want in order to make it
 freely available freely -- as at least a lib?  It's hard to believe
 anyone would appraise that thing with a high dollar value given its
 less than stellar optimization abilities, and since everyone knows you
 can't make much money off dev tools these days anyway.
  I'd happily chip in $100 US if it meant finally having an official D
 compiler that anyone can recompile for themselves just by typing "make
 dmd".
  Or is it more a matter of not being able to find the copyright holders
 in question to ask them?  If so, give us the names and whatever info
 you have, and I bet someone will be able to track 'em down.
  --bb



 I'd give another $100.

 -JJR


I would donate $100 for that, too.

Not that much for a few man-year project, for we *NEED* that urgently.
Plain old .lib file with stripped-off debug symbols and a dmd-only license  
would do the trick.

Please, Walter!

"Simen Kjaeraas" <simen.kjaras gmail.com> writes:

Koroskin Denis <2korden gmail.com> wrote:

 On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 05:03:32 +0400, John Reimer  
 <terminal.node gmail.com> wrote:

 Hello Bill,

 It's been talked about before, but exactly how much money do the
 people who own the copyright to DMD's backend want in order to make it
 freely available freely -- as at least a lib?  It's hard to believe
 anyone would appraise that thing with a high dollar value given its
 less than stellar optimization abilities, and since everyone knows you
 can't make much money off dev tools these days anyway.
  I'd happily chip in $100 US if it meant finally having an official D
 compiler that anyone can recompile for themselves just by typing "make
 dmd".
  Or is it more a matter of not being able to find the copyright holders
 in question to ask them?  If so, give us the names and whatever info
 you have, and I bet someone will be able to track 'em down.
  --bb



 I'd give another $100.

 -JJR


 I would donate $100 for that, too.

 Not that much for a few man-year project, for we *NEED* that urgently.
 Plain old .lib file with stripped-off debug symbols and a dmd-only  
 license would do the trick.

 Please, Walter!


Add another $100 from me.

-- Simen

Mark Sanders <mark cyanox.nl> writes:

Bill Baxter wrote:
 It's been talked about before, but exactly how much money do the people 
 who own the copyright to DMD's backend want in order to make it freely 
 available freely -- as at least a lib?  It's hard to believe anyone 
 would appraise that thing with a high dollar value given its less than 
 stellar optimization abilities, and since everyone knows you can't make 
 much money off dev tools these days anyway.
 
 I'd happily chip in $100 US if it meant finally having an official D 
 compiler that anyone can recompile for themselves just by typing "make 
 dmd".
 
 Or is it more a matter of not being able to find the copyright holders 
 in question to ask them?  If so, give us the names and whatever info you 
 have, and I bet someone will be able to track 'em down.
 
 --bb


If this is going to happen I'll be happy to spend 100 euro (~$157) or more.

--
Mark Sanders.

BCS <ao pathlink.com> writes:

Reply to Bill,

 It's been talked about before, but exactly how much money do the
 people who own the copyright to DMD's backend want in order to make it
 freely available freely -- as at least a lib?  It's hard to believe
 anyone would appraise that thing with a high dollar value given its
 less than stellar optimization abilities, and since everyone knows you
 can't make much money off dev tools these days anyway.
 
 I'd happily chip in $100 US if it meant finally having an official D
 compiler that anyone can recompile for themselves just by typing "make
 dmd".
 
 Or is it more a matter of not being able to find the copyright holders
 in question to ask them?  If so, give us the names and whatever info
 you have, and I bet someone will be able to track 'em down.
 
 --bb
 


I'd chip in somthing, $20 at least, maybe more, can't say exactly how much 
right now... (man I whish Marx hadn't been wrong).

BLS <nanali nospam-wanadoo.fr> writes:

Bill Baxter schrieb:
 It's been talked about before, but exactly how much money do the people 
 who own the copyright to DMD's backend want in order to make it freely 
 available freely -- as at least a lib?  It's hard to believe anyone 
 would appraise that thing with a high dollar value given its less than 
 stellar optimization abilities, and since everyone knows you can't make 
 much money off dev tools these days anyway.
 
 I'd happily chip in $100 US if it meant finally having an official D 
 compiler that anyone can recompile for themselves just by typing "make 
 dmd".
 
 Or is it more a matter of not being able to find the copyright holders 
 in question to ask them?  If so, give us the names and whatever info you 
 have, and I bet someone will be able to track 'em down.
 
 --bb

JAnderson <ask me.com> writes:

Bill Baxter wrote:
 It's been talked about before, but exactly how much money do the people 
 who own the copyright to DMD's backend want in order to make it freely 
 available freely -- as at least a lib?  It's hard to believe anyone 
 would appraise that thing with a high dollar value given its less than 
 stellar optimization abilities, and since everyone knows you can't make 
 much money off dev tools these days anyway.
 
 I'd happily chip in $100 US if it meant finally having an official D 
 compiler that anyone can recompile for themselves just by typing "make 
 dmd".
 
 Or is it more a matter of not being able to find the copyright holders 
 in question to ask them?  If so, give us the names and whatever info you 
 have, and I bet someone will be able to track 'em down.
 
 --bb


If it where just about money a donation button could be put on the 
digitalmars website and every other D website, with a target (whatever 
unreachable number that is).  It would only transfer the amount across 
when that amount was reached.

I'd give 100.

-Joel

"Manfred_Nowak" <svv1999 hotmail.com> writes:

Bill Baxter wrote:

 I'd happily chip in $100 US


Because there are some and might be even more donators:

http://www.fundable.com/

-manfred


-- 
Maybe some knowledge of some types of disagreeing and their relation 
can turn out to be useful:
http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/04/07/writing-strong-arguments/

Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:

Manfred_Nowak wrote:
 Bill Baxter wrote:
 
 I'd happily chip in $100 US


 Because there are some and might be even more donators:
 
 http://www.fundable.com/
 
 -manfred


That sounds pretty neat.  Would be cooler if they made their money by 
advertising instead of taking a 10% cut.  10% seems like a lot for doing 
something that seems rather simple.

--bb

"Manfred_Nowak" <svv1999 hotmail.com> writes:

Bill Baxter wrote:

 10% seems like a lot for doing 
 something that seems rather simple.
 


They claim to be professionals and therefore are likely to know that 
simplicity, which may result in an openness for negotiation _before_ 
starting anything on their platform. Because they require goals as low 
as low 200$, close to 20$ should do for any amount.

-manfred

-- 
Maybe some knowledge of some types of disagreeing and their relation 
can turn out to be useful:
http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/04/07/writing-strong-arguments/