• Tony (22/22) May 14 2004 Forgive me for raising this again, but I'm still a little confused by it...
• Walter (5/25) May 21 2004 closed

"Tony" <talktotony email.com> writes:

Forgive me for raising this again, but I'm still a little confused by it.

In the following posting, Walter has indicated that the Phobos library is
covered by a dual GPL/Artistic licence (unless the individual file says
otherwise):

http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?D/24044


In the following posting Walter has indicated that D can be used for closed
source projects:

http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?D/27211


I'm not sure that these two things are compatible.  Obviously, GPL is not
suitable for closed source projects so in these cases the artistic licence
will need to apply.

Can anyone confirm that the artistic licence does indeed allow for closed
source commercial development?


Also, I'm a little concerned that there isn't one single licence covering
all the modules in Phobos.  This seems to indicate that we will need to
individually check the source for every Phobos module we wish to use, and
then determine if the particular licence is compatible with a particular
project.

Any feedback would be welcome, but I'd be particularly grateful for an
"official" response from Walter.

Thanks,

Tony

"Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:

"Tony" <talktotony email.com> wrote in message
news:c83qba$25v9$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Forgive me for raising this again, but I'm still a little confused by it.

 In the following posting, Walter has indicated that the Phobos library is
 covered by a dual GPL/Artistic licence (unless the individual file says
 otherwise):

 http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?D/24044


 In the following posting Walter has indicated that D can be used for

closed
 source projects:

 http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?D/27211


 I'm not sure that these two things are compatible.  Obviously, GPL is not
 suitable for closed source projects so in these cases the artistic licence
 will need to apply.

 Can anyone confirm that the artistic licence does indeed allow for closed
 source commercial development?


 Also, I'm a little concerned that there isn't one single licence covering
 all the modules in Phobos.  This seems to indicate that we will need to
 individually check the source for every Phobos module we wish to use, and
 then determine if the particular licence is compatible with a particular
 project.

 Any feedback would be welcome, but I'd be particularly grateful for an
 "official" response from Walter.

I understand your concerns and the phobos license will be revised. You *can*
do closed source, proprietary, commercial development with D and Phobos.