dlang.org faq says dmd is licensed with norton license

Aug 29, 2017

i incidentally noticed the FAQ claims the dmd-backend would be licensed under a norton license. i thought it is an outdated information: https://dlang.org/faq.html#q5 however, i also checked the source code and it turned out that some files dont contain the string "boost": $ fgrep -iLR boost src/ddmd/backend/ src/ddmd/backend/bcomplex.h src/ddmd/backend/dt.h src/ddmd/backend/backend.txt src/ddmd/backend/code_stub.h src/ddmd/backend/dwarf2.h src/ddmd/backend/dwarf.d src/ddmd/backend/mach.d src/ddmd/backend/md5.c src/ddmd/backend/md5.h src/ddmd/backend/bcomplex.c src/ddmd/backend/mscoff.d src/ddmd/backend/dwarf2.d src/ddmd/backend/xmm.h src/ddmd/backend/cv4.d src/ddmd/backend/mscoff.h src/ddmd/backend/mach.h src/ddmd/backend/dwarf.h src/ddmd/backend/melf.h src/ddmd/backend/md5.d src/ddmd/backend/bcomplex.d src/ddmd/backend/cv4.h do you think the missing license headers are relevant? If not, i would make a pull request for the FAQ

August 29, 2017

Re: dlang.org faq says dmd is licensed with norton license

Posted by Jonathan M Davis
in reply to meppl

Permalink

Jonathan M Davis

Posted in reply to meppl

Permalink

On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 06:43:19 meppl via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> i incidentally noticed the FAQ claims the dmd-backend would be
> licensed under a norton license. i thought it is an outdated
> information:
> https://dlang.org/faq.html#q5
>
>
> however, i also checked the source code and it turned out that
> some files dont contain the string "boost":
> $ fgrep -iLR boost src/ddmd/backend/
> src/ddmd/backend/bcomplex.h
> src/ddmd/backend/dt.h
> src/ddmd/backend/backend.txt
> src/ddmd/backend/code_stub.h
> src/ddmd/backend/dwarf2.h
> src/ddmd/backend/dwarf.d
> src/ddmd/backend/mach.d
> src/ddmd/backend/md5.c
> src/ddmd/backend/md5.h
> src/ddmd/backend/bcomplex.c
> src/ddmd/backend/mscoff.d
> src/ddmd/backend/dwarf2.d
> src/ddmd/backend/xmm.h
> src/ddmd/backend/cv4.d
> src/ddmd/backend/mscoff.h
> src/ddmd/backend/mach.h
> src/ddmd/backend/dwarf.h
> src/ddmd/backend/melf.h
> src/ddmd/backend/md5.d
> src/ddmd/backend/bcomplex.d
> src/ddmd/backend/cv4.h
>
>
> do you think the missing license headers are relevant? If not, i would make a pull request for the FAQ

Both the frontend and backend are now entirely under the Boost license. Anything that says differently is out-of-date, but the change was recent enough, and there have been enough places to change, that it's no surprise if you've found some places where it hasn't been updated yet.

- Jonathan M Davis

On Tuesday, 29 August 2017 at 06:56:13 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 06:43:19 meppl via Digitalmars-d wrote: >> ... > Both the frontend and backend are now entirely under the Boost license. ... okay, PR was sent

Forums