View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
November 27, 2005
Clarifications on D License(s)
Can someone please clarify the licensing scheme for this compiler? D is a really
awesome language (been tinkering with it since 0.43), however, there seems to be
some confusion about how this thing is licensed. This is what I have been able
to piece together, although I am not sure of its validity:

* Front-end seems to be under GPL & Artistic License
* Back-end is under ???
* GDC is under GPL
* Phobos is under GPL
* No-Redist License on some/all of it ??

Mainly, I am concerned about this for two reasons:
* my favourite distribution (Gentoo Linux) refuses to include it in their
software archives (portage) claiming redist issues, and no access to versioned
tarballs.
* I'd like to write some open source software (possibly with D), but I want to
write it with a compiler which is also free-as-in-free-speech. 

Can someone please clarify the licensing of this software, and possibly explain
the reasoning behind why certain parts of the software (if any) are not under an
OSS-compatible ( http://opensource.org/licenses/ ) licenses? Thanks a bunch!
November 27, 2005
Re: Clarifications on D License(s)
"Brian" <Brian_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:dmbkhb$2d4o$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Can someone please clarify the licensing scheme for this compiler? D is a
really
> awesome language (been tinkering with it since 0.43), however, there seems
to be
> some confusion about how this thing is licensed. This is what I have been
able
> to piece together, although I am not sure of its validity:
>
> * Front-end seems to be under GPL & Artistic License

Yes.

> * Back-end is under ???

The DMD back end is proprietary. However, one can use GDC which is 100% GPL.

> * GDC is under GPL

Yes.

> * Phobos is under GPL

No, it's mostly public domain or under a free redistribution copyright.

> * No-Redist License on some/all of it ??

No.

> Mainly, I am concerned about this for two reasons:
> * my favourite distribution (Gentoo Linux) refuses to include it in their
> software archives (portage) claiming redist issues,

If they'll identify the redist issues to me, I will work with them to fix
it.

> and no access to versioned tarballs.

??

> * I'd like to write some open source software (possibly with D), but I
want to
> write it with a compiler which is also free-as-in-free-speech.
>
> Can someone please clarify the licensing of this software, and possibly
explain
> the reasoning behind why certain parts of the software (if any) are not
under an
> OSS-compatible ( http://opensource.org/licenses/ ) licenses? Thanks a
bunch!

If someone does have a specific issue, please let me know.
November 27, 2005
Re: Clarifications on D License(s)
Walter Bright schrieb am 2005-11-27:
>
> "Brian" <Brian_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message
> news:dmbkhb$2d4o$1@digitaldaemon.com...

<snip>

>> Mainly, I am concerned about this for two reasons:
>> * my favourite distribution (Gentoo Linux) refuses to include it in their
>> software archives (portage) claiming redist issues,
>
> If they'll identify the redist issues to me, I will work with them to fix
> it.
>
>> and no access to versioned tarballs.
>
> ??

That is a non-issue as there are versioned zips. Several ebuilds
including xcolor, cbind, achemso and charles use zips too.

Thomas
November 27, 2005
Re: Clarifications on D License(s)
In article <dmc224$2moq$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter Bright says...

>> Mainly, I am concerned about this for two reasons:
>> * my favourite distribution (Gentoo Linux) refuses to include it in their
>> software archives (portage) claiming redist issues,
>
>If they'll identify the redist issues to me, I will work with them to fix
>it.

Awesome. I'll get in contact with their devs about it. 

>
>> and no access to versioned tarballs.
>
>??

I think what they mean is that they cant find zips/tars with version strings
attached. I have only been able to find dmd.zip for download, but not something
that indicates the version, e.g. dmd-0.140.zip. If such a thing is already
available, please direct me to it ;-) Thanks.
November 27, 2005
Re: Clarifications on D License(s)
Download links are here:

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html

They may mean that they cannot find versioned SOURCE tarballs, which 
will compile (since Gentoo is a source-based distro.)  Unfortunately, as 
mentioned, the backend for DMD is not open source.  Because of this, you 
cannot compile from source any version of DMD you wish.

This is not true with gdc (you can compile it from source), but 
unfortunately old versions of that do not seem to be available, as far 
as I can tell.  This may have been what they meant.

To be honest, it would be nice to be able to compile DMD (e.g., using a 
lib/so or something for the backend), but I understand why Walter 
doesn't want to do this.

-[Unknown]


> In article <dmc224$2moq$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter Bright says...
> 
> 
>>>Mainly, I am concerned about this for two reasons:
>>>* my favourite distribution (Gentoo Linux) refuses to include it in their
>>>software archives (portage) claiming redist issues,
>>
>>If they'll identify the redist issues to me, I will work with them to fix
>>it.
> 
> 
> Awesome. I'll get in contact with their devs about it. 
> 
> 
>>>and no access to versioned tarballs.
>>
>>??
> 
> 
> I think what they mean is that they cant find zips/tars with version strings
> attached. I have only been able to find dmd.zip for download, but not something
> that indicates the version, e.g. dmd-0.140.zip. If such a thing is already
> available, please direct me to it ;-) Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
November 27, 2005
Re: Clarifications on D License(s)
"Brian" <Brian_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:dmcn4n$720$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> I think what they mean is that they cant find zips/tars with version
strings
> attached. I have only been able to find dmd.zip for download, but not
something
> that indicates the version, e.g. dmd-0.140.zip. If such a thing is already
> available, please direct me to it ;-) Thanks.

http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.140.zip
November 27, 2005
Re: Clarifications on D License(s)
Walter Bright wrote:
> "Brian" <Brian_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message
> news:dmcn4n$720$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> I think what they mean is that they cant find zips/tars with version
> strings
>> attached. I have only been able to find dmd.zip for download, but not
> something
>> that indicates the version, e.g. dmd-0.140.zip. If such a thing is already
>> available, please direct me to it ;-) Thanks.
> 
> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.140.zip

And links to all the releases are available in the changelog:

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
November 28, 2005
Re: Clarifications on D License(s)
Brian wrote:

> Mainly, I am concerned about this for two reasons:
> * my favourite distribution (Gentoo Linux) refuses to include it in their
> software archives (portage) claiming redist issues, and no access to versioned
> tarballs.

This a very old issue, and has been resolved for Gentoo - a year ago ?
(see http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/17651.html etc)

dmd-0.121.ebuild (probably works for newer too)
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46806

> * I'd like to write some open source software (possibly with D), but I want to
> write it with a compiler which is also free-as-in-free-speech. 

So just use GDC then, it's under the "free-as-in-stallman" GPL license ?
DMD is not re-distributable, and doesn't come with the full source code.

gdc-0.15.ebuild (probably works for newer too)
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48136

> Can someone please clarify the licensing of this software, and possibly explain
> the reasoning behind why certain parts of the software (if any) are not under an
> OSS-compatible ( http://opensource.org/licenses/ ) licenses? Thanks a bunch!

The above ebuild files should have license info set.

dmd:
LICENSE="DMD"
RESTRICT="nomirror"
KEYWORDS="~x86"

gdc:
LICENSE="GPL-2"

Phobos is a part of both compilers (but is patched *differently*),
and is (mostly) under either Public Domain or zlib/libpng license.

See also http://prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?PhobosLicenseIssues

--anders


PS. For the terminally bored, here are the version-by-version diffs:
    http://www.algonet.se/~afb/d/diffs/   (for both of DMD and GDC)
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home