On Tuesday, 17 November 2015 at 23:35:58 UTC, Wild wrote:
> Hey!
>
> I have recently started working on a 64bit kernel ...

Hi,

Good to see more work in the OS area. I am even more happy there is more developers interested in GUI stuff. I have one fundamental question though:

Is it possible for you to pick the Boost license (especially for libs)?

This is my general concern for all libs developed by the D community. IMO license other than Boost is very cumbersome and doesn't comply with the D core libs.

Piotrek

On Wednesday, 18 November 2015 at 11:25:55 UTC, Wild wrote:
> On Wednesday, 18 November 2015 at 11:20:58 UTC, Rikki Cattermole wrote:
>> Will you being going down the path of libc/posix compat layer or straight up D all the way?
>
> I want to go D all the way.
> But if I have to get a libc, I will try and implement one in D.

it is possible to implement libC on top of your code standard library in D so that D-only applications don't rely on legacy C code.

Newlib is a portable libC implementation that is relatively easy (the linker errors might take you longer to sort than the code :) to get going.

initially we implemented its '13 system calls' in C:
https://github.com/wolfwood/buildtools/blob/xomb/newlib-files/syscalls.c

but we eventually moved most of that code into D:
https://github.com/wolfwood/xomb/blob/unborn/user/c/cbindings.d

obviously most of the details will be different for your OS.

On Saturday, 21 November 2015 at 11:34:57 UTC, Piotrek wrote:
> This is my general concern for all libs developed by the D community. IMO license other than Boost is very cumbersome and doesn't comply with the D core libs.

Just re-read the boost license and it says nothing about incompatibility with other libraries written in other licenses. How would it be a problem then that the D core libs are licensed with boost and this program isn't?

Heck, even the GPL is compatible! http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#boost

On Saturday, 21 November 2015 at 11:34:57 UTC, Piotrek wrote:
> On Tuesday, 17 November 2015 at 23:35:58 UTC, Wild wrote:
>> Hey!
>>
>> I have recently started working on a 64bit kernel ...
>
> Hi,
>
> Good to see more work in the OS area. I am even more happy there is more developers interested in GUI stuff. I have one fundamental question though:
>
> Is it possible for you to pick the Boost license (especially for libs)?
>
> This is my general concern for all libs developed by the D community. IMO license other than Boost is very cumbersome and doesn't comply with the D core libs.
>
> Piotrek

Like cym13 said, there should not be any problems with the MPLv2 license.

MPLv2 is basically LGPL but at a file level and it won't "infect" any other files.
My code can included in any close source projects.
The only thing is that if any of my files are changed, those changes need to published.

- Dan

On Wednesday, 25 November 2015 at 14:44:09 UTC, Wild wrote:
> On Saturday, 21 November 2015 at 11:34:57 UTC, Piotrek wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 17 November 2015 at 23:35:58 UTC, Wild wrote:
>>> Hey!
>>>
>>> I have recently started working on a 64bit kernel ...
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Good to see more work in the OS area. I am even more happy there is more developers interested in GUI stuff. I have one fundamental question though:
>>
>> Is it possible for you to pick the Boost license (especially for libs)?
>>
>> This is my general concern for all libs developed by the D community. IMO license other than Boost is very cumbersome and doesn't comply with the D core libs.
>>
>> Piotrek
>
> Like cym13 said, there should not be any problems with the MPLv2 license.
>
> MPLv2 is basically LGPL but at a file level and it won't "infect" any other files.
> My code can included in any close source projects.
> The only thing is that if any of my files are changed, those changes need to published.
>
> - Dan

Hi,

No worries :) Feel free to use whatever license you want. It is your code.

However my point was that the code released with license other than  Boost (or similar) cannot be included in Phobos. That's one thing. The second is, non liberal licenses put burden on commercial adoption and put risk on legal actions. I know that from the employee POV who worked for many corporations and was obliged to follow the rules.

The bottom line is that viral licenses (with varying aggressiveness) are in opposition to business. Yes, I know GPL is used by companies but the cost is high. To use analogy: you can live with viruses, but you need money for medicines.

BTW. Sorry if I sounded to harsh and forgive me stealing your announcement for my propaganda ;) I'll try to figure out a way to present my ideas in proper way before I have to many enemies.

Piotrek

On Sunday, 22 November 2015 at 21:05:29 UTC, cym13 wrote:
>
> Heck, even the GPL is compatible! http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#boost

Hi,

No. It isn't. It is the other way around
"Boost Software License ... is compatible with the GNU GPL.". But GPL is not compatible with the Boost license.

Piotrek

On Wednesday, 25 November 2015 at 16:18:56 UTC, Piotrek wrote:
> Hi,
>
> No worries :) Feel free to use whatever license you want. It is your code.
>
> However my point was that the code released with license other than  Boost (or similar) cannot be included in Phobos. That's one thing. The second is, non liberal licenses put burden on commercial adoption and put risk on legal actions. I know that from the employee POV who worked for many corporations and was obliged to follow the rules.
>
> The bottom line is that viral licenses (with varying aggressiveness) are in opposition to business. Yes, I know GPL is used by companies but the cost is high. To use analogy: you can live with viruses, but you need money for medicines.
>
> BTW. Sorry if I sounded to harsh and forgive me stealing your announcement for my propaganda ;) I'll try to figure out a way to present my ideas in proper way before I have to many enemies.
>
> Piotrek

No offense taken.
It's important for a project to have a fitting license.
I chose MPLv2 because I like the code to be free like BSD, for it to be able to be located in all sorts of project, but I still want the code to remain open source.

I will maybe change the license in the future, if needed.
But currently I don't see a reason to do it.

- Dan

On Saturday, 21 November 2015 at 11:34:57 UTC, Piotrek wrote:
> Is it possible for you to pick the Boost license (especially for libs)?

Honestly, if I were to urge anything (I don't really feel like doing so), I would urge the opposite.  If the experience of Linux versus other free/open-source operating systems is anything to go by, it matters that an operating system kernel is strong copyleft.

Boost is absolutely the right choice of license for druntime and phobos because of their use-cases, but that doesn't mean that it's the right choice for all D code.

@Dan/Wild: congratulations on a cool project, it will be fun to see what comes of this :-)

On Wednesday, 25 November 2015 at 18:06:45 UTC, Wild wrote:
> On Wednesday, 25 November 2015 at 16:18:56 UTC, Piotrek wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> No worries :) Feel free to use whatever license you want. It is your code.
>>
>> However my point was that the code released with license other than  Boost (or similar) cannot be included in Phobos. That's one thing. The second is, non liberal licenses put burden on commercial adoption and put risk on legal actions. I know that from the employee POV who worked for many corporations and was obliged to follow the rules.
>>
>> The bottom line is that viral licenses (with varying aggressiveness) are in opposition to business. Yes, I know GPL is used by companies but the cost is high. To use analogy: you can live with viruses, but you need money for medicines.
>>
>> BTW. Sorry if I sounded to harsh and forgive me stealing your announcement for my propaganda ;) I'll try to figure out a way to present my ideas in proper way before I have to many enemies.
>>
>> Piotrek
>
> No offense taken.
> It's important for a project to have a fitting license.
> I chose MPLv2 because I like the code to be free like BSD, for it to be able to be located in all sorts of project, but I still want the code to remain open source.
>
> I will maybe change the license in the future, if needed.
> But currently I don't see a reason to do it.
>
> - Dan

For phobos contributions it doesn't really matter what licence the code previously had as long as you can give permission for it to be used, which is easy if you're the only author. The difficulty comes when you have many authors over many years and you need to get all their permissions.