www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.announce - Wiki D Programming Book

reply "Derek Parnell" <derek psych.ward> writes:
I discovered this today.

   http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Programming:D

I suggest that we combine our efforts to fill in the blanks and create a  
useful programming guide for D.

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
Apr 08 2006
next sibling parent Frank Benoit <benoit__ __tionex.de> writes:
   http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Programming:D
 
 I suggest that we combine our efforts to fill in the blanks and create a
 useful programming guide for D.



Excellent idea
Apr 08 2006
prev sibling parent reply Frank Benoit <benoit__ __tionex.de> writes:
 Walter
Is it OK to copy the D spec from the digitalmars website to this
wikibook? Is it also OK to modify the text and make further examples and
comments?

Frank
Apr 08 2006
next sibling parent =?UTF-8?B?QW5kZXJzIEYgQmrDtnJrbHVuZA==?= <afb algonet.se> writes:
Frank Benoit wrote:


 Is it OK to copy the D spec from the digitalmars website to this
 wikibook? Is it also OK to modify the text and make further examples and
 comments?


Last time I asked the D language specification and documentation was all 
copyrighted by Digital Mars and not licensed for copying / extending...

But that was years ago, and Walter would know if the policy has changed.
Having some Open Content or Free Documentation docs, would be excellent.

--anders
Apr 08 2006
prev sibling parent reply Hasan Aljudy <hasan.aljudy gmail.com> writes:
Frank Benoit wrote:

  Walter
 Is it OK to copy the D spec from the digitalmars website to this
 wikibook? Is it also OK to modify the text and make further examples and
 comments?
 
 Frank


I don't think so.
The official D specs are copy righted.
Wikibooks are copy lefted (GNU Free Documentation License)
Apr 08 2006
parent reply Frank Benoit <keinfarbton nospam.xyz> writes:
 I don't think so.
 The official D specs are copy righted.
 Wikibooks are copy lefted (GNU Free Documentation License)


Is this the right way?
Doesn't the spec need to be free as well as the compiler front-end?

If the spec is copyrighted, how can someone write a book about D and it
spec? Does everyone have to ask digitalmars first?

A few post before i asked " Walter". But there is no reaction.

A lot of books contain a reference part which is mostly a commented copy
of some spec.
Apr 15 2006
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
Frank Benoit wrote:

 I don't think so.
 The official D specs are copy righted.
 Wikibooks are copy lefted (GNU Free Documentation License)


 
 Is this the right way?
 Doesn't the spec need to be free as well as the compiler front-end?
 
 If the spec is copyrighted, how can someone write a book about D and it
 spec? Does everyone have to ask digitalmars first?
 
 A few post before i asked " Walter". But there is no reaction.
 
 A lot of books contain a reference part which is mostly a commented copy
 of some spec.


The exact text is copyrighted, but the ideas are not. You cannot 
copyright an idea (you can patent them, but none of D is patented).

The C and C++ specifications are copyrighted, but that hasn't impaired 
an endless procession of C and C++ reference books from being written - 
but none of them duplicate the specs word for word.

The difference between the C/C++ specs and the D spec is the latter is 
free, the former costs $ before they can be downloaded.
Apr 15 2006
parent Frank Benoit <keinfarbton nospam.xyz> writes:
 The exact text is copyrighted, but the ideas are not. You cannot
 copyright an idea (you can patent them, but none of D is patented).
 
 The C and C++ specifications are copyrighted, but that hasn't impaired
 an endless procession of C and C++ reference books from being written -
 but none of them duplicate the specs word for word.
 
 The difference between the C/C++ specs and the D spec is the latter is
 free, the former costs $ before they can be downloaded.


Thanks for the clarification.
Apr 15 2006