View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
April 29, 2006
Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: GNU-D opens up shop
Gabe McArthur wrote:
> In article <e2uvsh$22kt$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter Bright says...
>> Kyle Furlong wrote:
>>> I think we can reasonably say... TROLL ALERT. Everyone, for Bob's sake, 
>>> just go to www.dsource.org, pick a project or start your own, and get to 
>>> work.
> 
> I haven't really overlooked dsource.org.  In fact I've been going over it quite
> a bit.  I really like what dsource is trying to accomplish, and I'm not trying
> to overshadow them or detract from what they are doing.  Instead, I want to put
> a spotlight on a problem in a way that the relatively loose collection of
> libraries on dsource simply doesn't address -- namely, bringing many people
> together around one project -- a project who's sole focus is usability.
> 
> Frankly, I think you're all pretty fantastic for working so hard on D -- it's a
> labor of love for many of you and you should feel exceptionally proud.  You are
> all competent professionals that love to explore new avenues and work towards
> making D a better language.
> 
> However, for everyone else out there -- everyone who isn't a born programmer --
> I feel that what D really needs is an entry-level configuration for would-be D
> hackers: something that 'just works'.  Look at Java and Mono -- these
> languages/libraries aren't just succeeding because they have great communities
> or prolific resources -- they're succeeding because they package together good
> tools, inteligent ideas, huge libraries, and wonderful documentation into one
> place.  And they live by setting project goals!  Everybody's contributions are
> being fed back into one location, one repository, one central nexus of talent
> and development.  In this sense, one might consider dsource a wonderful
> kaliedescope of talent and libraries, but what is probalby needed is a laser: a
> focus and direction to the whole project with mesurable goals and specific
> timelines.  (You can see from the current development of the gcd, things seem to
> be somewhat in the air in terms of maintaining contact and getting people
> organized.)
> 
> As for the liscensing issue, well, I came to the LGPL and GPL after looking
> through some of the dsource libraries and wondering at some of the liscenses
> (Ares, I discovered after questioning, should be under a kind of BSD liscense).
> I don't want there to be any question about the status of the gnu-d.org library.
> I really want people to feel that they can take what gets put up and do whatever
> they want with it, as long as they realize that the code isn't a personal right
> but a public ownership best served by having everyone involved.  Besides, it
> isn't necessarily handed down from on high that everything has to be under the
> LGPL (though the core library probably should be), as the community may decide
> that the MIT or BSD liscense will be sufficient in certain circumstances.  But,
> there again is part of my point: put a laser beam focus on what needs to be done
> and do that one thing well -- as a community.
> 
> And, just as an aside, I would like to say that just as many people here are
> disturbed by the power of the GPL, there are many, many other people in the
> world who hack every day under the ideal of free software. 

Personally, I'm OK with the GPL, when appropriate. (For example, I think 
it makes sense for an IDE to be under a GPL license). However, I'm much 
more disturbed by the LGPL: I believe it's a completely inappropriate 
license for libraries (in fact, inappropriate for *any* purpose).

Please make everything either public domain/BSD/MIT/zlib, or GPL, or 
commercial closed source.

Otherwise, I think it makes a lot of sense to have a site dedicated to a 
 unified GDC package.

 It's these dedicated
> individuals that I would like gnu-d.org to appeal to, as well.  The lack of a
> direct mission statement on the D website and a lack of explicit liscensing for
> every D component, I feel, is currently inhibiting some people who might
> otherwise join up.  (It might be unfair, but some people figure if they have to
> ask about what liscense it's under, they probably don't even want to know.)
> 
> To summarize: timelines, community, docuemntation, and packaging.  I think these
> should be some of the primary goals of gnu-d.org
> 
> If you want to join, great!  I know that I would love to have the company.  If
> not, then no hard feelings -- you're still doing great work for D, and that's
> what's really important!
> 
> Salud,
> Gabe
> 
>
April 29, 2006
Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: GNU-D opens up shop
In article <e2vao5$2moc$1@digitaldaemon.com>, 
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= says...

<snip>

>However, gnu-d.org would work *great* as the new GNU D Compiler site...
>
>Then it could hold the tools and documentation for compiler toolchain, 
>and Dsource could continue to do what it is good at: hosting projects.
>I was thinking something like this site: http://www.gnu-pascal.org/
>
>We've already discussed packaging on the other newsgroups (d.D / D.gnu),
>but it includes the packaging for Linux, Cygwin (Win) and Darwin (Mac).
>Documentation would be how to set up the compiler and getting started ?
>
>IMHO: I think this would much be more useful than another "committee".

I agree. It's a bit annoying to search through the newsgroup archive to find 
some links to the unofficial gdb/gdc patches. A central repository for GNU d 
compiler tools would be more than helpful.

One thing that bothers me is that what does this GNU mean here? Do we have to 
assign any copyrights to GNU? If that is not required, it will most probably 
hurt the development of GNU D compiler tools. (at some point the transition 
from gpl2->gpl3 will take place)

I personally have a high respect for GNU licenses and know that some people 
here don't fancy this stuff that much, but I want to remind you that the main 
purpose of GNU tools is to guarantee the freedom of the compilation process. 
They can be used for even commercial closed source purposes.

-- 
Jari-Matti
April 29, 2006
Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: GNU-D opens up shop (LGPL)
Don Clugston wrote:

> Personally, I'm OK with the GPL, when appropriate. (For example, I think 
> it makes sense for an IDE to be under a GPL license). However, I'm much 
> more disturbed by the LGPL: I believe it's a completely inappropriate 
> license for libraries (in fact, inappropriate for *any* purpose).

Out of curiosity, what do you think of the wxWidgets License ?
(it is LGPL, with an exception to allow for static linking too)

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/wxwindows.php
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/lgpl-license.php

--anders
April 29, 2006
Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: GNU-D opens up shop
Jari-Matti Mäkelä wrote:

> One thing that bothers me is that what does this GNU mean here? Do we have to 
> assign any copyrights to GNU? If that is not required, it will most probably 
> hurt the development of GNU D compiler tools. (at some point the transition 
> from gpl2->gpl3 will take place)

I don't think we have to, unless we want it to be part of the main GCC ?
It would be nice if we could get the needed D *patches* conditionalized
into the main GCC tree, but I don't think that all of D has to be there.
(we can still package it together with GCC, since they're all under GPL)

I think it's enough if you can add the "d" and "libphobos" directories
to an existing GCC tarball, patch some Makefiles, and be on your way ?
But technically I think the name of it is "GDC - D Front End for GCC",
that is: GDC is just an acronym, as using GNU isn't really authorized ?


DMD is copyright Digital Mars, and GDC is copyright David Friedman,
DMD licensed under GPL v1 and GDC under GPL v2 (should be compatible)

To *really* be "the GNU D Compiler", both of these must sign their
copyright over to "Free Software Foundation, Inc.", I suppose... ?

At least that is how I interpret: http://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html
(they say either assign to FSF, or give up copyright by making it PD)

But I haven't had any FSF complaints about me using "GNU D Compiler"
for it on the gdcmac site (http://gdcmac.sourceforge.net/), so far....

--anders
April 29, 2006
Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: GNU-D opens up shop (LGPL)
Anders F Björklund wrote:
> Don Clugston wrote:
> 
>> Personally, I'm OK with the GPL, when appropriate. (For example, I 
>> think it makes sense for an IDE to be under a GPL license). However, 
>> I'm much more disturbed by the LGPL: I believe it's a completely 
>> inappropriate license for libraries (in fact, inappropriate for *any* 
>> purpose).
> 
> Out of curiosity, what do you think of the wxWidgets License ?
> (it is LGPL, with an exception to allow for static linking too)

It is much better. The prohibition against static linking is IMHO the 
most absurd condition in any license I've seen (with the possible 
exception of the Arse licence used by Deimos). But having a license with 
an exception just seems complicated to me.

> 
> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/wxwindows.php
> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/lgpl-license.php
> 
> --anders
April 29, 2006
Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: GNU-D opens up shop (LGPL)
Don Clugston wrote:

> It is much better. The prohibition against static linking is IMHO the 
> most absurd condition in any license I've seen (with the possible 
> exception of the Arse licence used by Deimos).

But you know why LGPL has this somewhat tedious requirement, right ?

You *can* link your app statically, as long as you provide the object
files necessary for linking everything with the LGPL library replaced.
You do have to include the source code for the LGPL component, though.
(Most of the time just using the standard shared libraries is easier)

Anyway, the wxWidgets license does allow you to link it either way...

> But having a license with an exception just seems complicated to me.

Having two licenses on one code isn't exactly uncomplicated either...

--anders
April 29, 2006
Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: GNU-D opens up shop (LGPL)
Anders F Björklund wrote:
> Don Clugston wrote:
> 
>> It is much better. The prohibition against static linking is IMHO the 
>> most absurd condition in any license I've seen (with the possible 
>> exception of the Arse licence used by Deimos).
> 
> But you know why LGPL has this somewhat tedious requirement, right ?
> 
> You *can* link your app statically, as long as you provide the object
> files necessary for linking everything with the LGPL library replaced.
> You do have to include the source code for the LGPL component, though.
> (Most of the time just using the standard shared libraries is easier)
> 
> Anyway, the wxWidgets license does allow you to link it either way...
> 
>> But having a license with an exception just seems complicated to me.
> 
> Having two licenses on one code isn't exactly uncomplicated either...

Both of these restrictions can be somewhat of an obstacle for a 
commercial project.  Personally, I'd prefer an artistic-style license so 
as not to unnecessarily restrict the users of my code.


Sean
April 29, 2006
Re: GNU-D opens up shop
kris wrote:
> Hasan Aljudy wrote:
> 
>> kris wrote:
>>
>>> Gabe McArthur wrote:
>>>
>>>> I haven't really overlooked dsource.org.  In fact I've been going 
>>>> over it quite
>>>> a bit.  I really like what dsource is trying to accomplish, and I'm 
>>>> not trying
>>>> to overshadow them or detract from what they are doing.  
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What exactly is stopping anyone, including you, from doing what you 
>>> describe at dsource?
>>>
>>>
>>>> Instead, I want to put
>>>> a spotlight on a problem in a way that the relatively loose 
>>>> collection of
>>>> libraries on dsource simply doesn't address -- namely, bringing many 
>>>> people
>>>> together around one project -- a project who's sole focus is usability.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I see. And this requires splitting away from dsource.org, and must be
>>> handled under the banner of GNU. O.k.a.y. Doesn't that sound like a 
>>> shallow sales-pitch to you? Like a book-purchase link?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> D Source is *NOT* the official or the one and only place for D projects.
>>
>> IMHO, having /more/ websites dedicated to the D programming language 
>> is for the better.
> 
> 
> 
> That's right. But that's a different aspect altogether -- the original 
> question remains: why does building a set of cohesive libraries require 
> a new host/site? Why can't that be done on dsource.org ?

That's a good question.
I think that if you have a vision, you must be the leader in order to 
achieve that vision.
Gabe seems to have a vision, he cannot realize that vision on 
dsource.org, there for he's trying to create a new movement among the 
community, where he is the leader that directs everyone to achieve the 
vision that he has.
April 29, 2006
Re: GNU-D opens up shop
Hasan Aljudy wrote:
[snip]
>> That's right. But that's a different aspect altogether -- the original 
>> question remains: why does building a set of cohesive libraries 
>> require a new host/site? Why can't that be done on dsource.org ?
> 
> 
> That's a good question.
> I think that if you have a vision, you must be the leader in order to 
> achieve that vision.
> Gabe seems to have a vision, he cannot realize that vision on 
> dsource.org, there for he's trying to create a new movement among the 
> community, where he is the leader that directs everyone to achieve the 
> vision that he has.

Well, that's certainly a twist :)

The obvious question is: why can't this "vision" be manifested at dsource?

I mean, is dsource such an unruly place that nothing can possibly be 
achieved? Are they just not worthy, over there? Or, do those currently 
at dsource not have any notion of vision?

I have this "vision" of a horde of gnarly programmers milling around at 
dsource like pigs at a trough <g>

And, why can't gabe answer these question himself? It's been asked a 
number of times now ;)

Having a "vision" is great. And, if one needs to place said vision under 
the umbrella of some doctrine, then more power to you. However, that 
tends to point toward one thing, and pretty much one thing only: such a 
"vision" appears to be more about ivory-towers than about a D community 
or the furtherment/success of D per se. Otherwise, it could happily take 
place at the "grand cathedral" of dsource. Right?

Without meaning to state the obvious, it's not as though others are not 
currently working on a "unified vision" either - it's hardly a novel 
idea - some of those projects even have one or two years invested thus 
far. Is it too much trouble to get involved with those, perhaps? Are 
they perhaps just not good enough? Is there perhaps a touch of "not 
invented here" syndrome? Something else maybe?

I'd like to think these questions have some logical and rational 
answers, and I'd really like to see you folks join in with the effort 
under way at dsource. Lastly, I'd like to think we won't find gnu-d with 
its little hand in the "open" dsource cookie-jar :)

- Kris
April 29, 2006
Re: GNU-D opens up shop
In article <e30n4a$22ig$1@digitaldaemon.com>, kris says...
>
>Hasan Aljudy wrote:
>[snip]
>>> That's right. But that's a different aspect altogether -- the original 
>>> question remains: why does building a set of cohesive libraries 
>>> require a new host/site? Why can't that be done on dsource.org ?
>> 
>> 
>> That's a good question.
>> I think that if you have a vision, you must be the leader in order to 
>> achieve that vision.
>> Gabe seems to have a vision, he cannot realize that vision on 
>> dsource.org, there for he's trying to create a new movement among the 
>> community, where he is the leader that directs everyone to achieve the 
>> vision that he has.
>
>Well, that's certainly a twist :)
>
>The obvious question is: why can't this "vision" be manifested at dsource?
>
>I mean, is dsource such an unruly place that nothing can possibly be 
>achieved? Are they just not worthy, over there? Or, do those currently 
>at dsource not have any notion of vision?
>
>I have this "vision" of a horde of gnarly programmers milling around at 
>dsource like pigs at a trough <g>
>
>And, why can't gabe answer these question himself? It's been asked a 
>number of times now ;)
>
>Having a "vision" is great. And, if one needs to place said vision under 
>the umbrella of some doctrine, then more power to you. However, that 
>tends to point toward one thing, and pretty much one thing only: such a 
>"vision" appears to be more about ivory-towers than about a D community 
>or the furtherment/success of D per se. Otherwise, it could happily take 
>place at the "grand cathedral" of dsource. Right?
>
>Without meaning to state the obvious, it's not as though others are not 
>currently working on a "unified vision" either - it's hardly a novel 
>idea - some of those projects even have one or two years invested thus 
>far. Is it too much trouble to get involved with those, perhaps? Are 
>they perhaps just not good enough? Is there perhaps a touch of "not 
>invented here" syndrome? Something else maybe?
>
>I'd like to think these questions have some logical and rational 
>answers, and I'd really like to see you folks join in with the effort 
>under way at dsource. Lastly, I'd like to think we won't find gnu-d with 
>its little hand in the "open" dsource cookie-jar :)
>
>- Kris

In the end, this just adds up to why to use or why not to use dsource.org. It's
all a matter of impression. Gabe want's a site where there is only one focus,
having a lot of libraries that each own has one focus doesn't give an impression
of uniformity or conformity. It's not that having a variety of libraries is bad,
but in order to develop a package you need your own page just to give the
impression that your goal is unified. Mono is both hosted in it's page and in
sourceforge, as many other projects do, but it's goals and management doesn't
occur through sourceforge (mainly) and that's probably the reason for a new
page. As someone said earlier, it isn't necessarily bad to have several pages.
In the end, using dsource to control such a large project and such a large idea,
gives an impression of constrainment and that's why I see it fit to host it on
another page. In the end, though, discussing the locality of the project
provides no benefit to whole. 

We should put our attention to more important issues like how to accomplish
everything we wan't. I come from a .NET/Java background in the sense that I'm
used to work in a coherent environment and that the tools needed to be
productive are there, every thing just works. I see D trying to accomplish those
goals but also providing a more powerful platform such that you don't have to go
back to C/C++ if you need such power. One of the things I just hate of C/C++ is
that there are countless Standard libraries and that every single project I've
seen in a company uses either a different one or one created by them. We
shouldn't let this happen to D, otherwise we wouldn't be providing anything
meaningful for those looking for an alternative to the other modern languages.
Not that there shouldn't be a lot of libraries, on the contrary, but we should
also provide a coherent framework.

I would like to ask anyone that reads what I wrote, to keep in mind that english
isn't my native language and that there could be errors in what I wrote, but try
to grasp the whole meaning of what I intended to say.

Regards,
Alberto Simoon
1 2 3 4 5 6
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home