http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/82ck4/digitalmars_d_now_open_source/

http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/82cgp/new_release_of_the_d_programming_language_now/

Walter Bright wrote:
> http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/82ck4/digitalmars_d_now_open_source/ 
> 
> 
> http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/82cgp/new_release_of_the_d_programming_language_now/ 
> 

Wow there's a big fuss over there about it not being /really/ open source,

Can you explain (to the ignorant likes of me) what is constraining you from changing the license?

hasen wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/82ck4/digitalmars_d_now_open_source/ 
>>
>>
>> http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/82cgp/new_release_of_the_d_programming_language_now/ 
>>
> 
> Wow there's a big fuss over there about it not being /really/ open source,

To us, this doesn't really matter. The important thing is that we can build the compiler itself, and can debug it if it craps up (which happens often, sorry Walter). For example, now we might be able to find out on which piece of code exactly it segfaults when compiling. Oh, and remember the libc issues. Now users affected by this problem can compile their own binary.

When we want a completely free compiler for ideological reasons or for unrestricted redistribution, there's still LDC. LDC connects the free (GPL'ed) frontend with the free LLVM backend.

Also, I thought open source != free software.

> Can you explain (to the ignorant likes of me) what is constraining you from changing the license?

grauzone wrote:
> To us, this doesn't really matter. The important thing is that we can build the compiler itself, and can debug it if it craps up (which happens often, sorry Walter). For example, now we might be able to find out on which piece of code exactly it segfaults when compiling. Oh, and remember the libc issues. Now users affected by this problem can compile their own binary.

Making the source available deals with the following:

1. people can be assured there's no hanky-panky going on in the code - no spyware, trojans, back doors, phone homing, etc.

2. if there's a serious problem, users can apply a patch themselves rather than wait around for me

3. if Digital Mars vanishes in a puff of greasy black smoke, users depending on dmd are not left holding the bag

4. makes custom ports the user cares about but nobody else does possible

5. engineers are curious and like to peek under the hood <g>.

6. hopefully it will make finding and correcting problems faster as people can build it with symbolic debug info, and submit patches

7. allow for two way feedback on it, which should improve the quality



What it doesn't do is:

1. allow redistribution without getting an additional license from D.M.


What I should also say is the back end was built without ever expecting it to be open source, hence the comments are generally notes to myself. It's pretty dense, not very attractive, and full of bad style and detritus. However, it does work.

I also need to point out that in various places there are contributions by Pat Nelson (initial elf work), Mike Cote and John Micco (inline assembler). The instruction scheduler is based on ideas of Steve Russell's.

hasen wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/82ck4/digitalmars_d_now_open_source/ 
>>
>>
>> http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/82cgp/new_release_of_the_d_programming_language_now/ 
>>
> 
> Wow there's a big fuss over there about it not being /really/ open source,

Seems kind of silly to me.  The big deal with the full source for DMD being available is that if DigitalMars disappears in a puff of smoke tomorrow, customers have a means of preserving their investment in the language.  This can be a big deal for corporate users.

On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 4:42 AM, Sean Kelly <sean@invisibleduck.org> wrote:
> hasen wrote:
>>
>> Walter Bright wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/82ck4/digitalmars_d_now_open_source/
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/82cgp/new_release_of_the_d_programming_language_now/
>>
>> Wow there's a big fuss over there about it not being /really/ open source,
>
> Seems kind of silly to me.  The big deal with the full source for DMD being available is that if DigitalMars disappears in a puff of smoke tomorrow, customers have a means of preserving their investment in the language.  This can be a big deal for corporate users.
>

I'm not sure I see the big value here. If Digital Mars indeed went up in smoke some day, how will the source help? They're still not allowed to do anything but "personal use" with it...

Or am I missing something ?

-Tomas

Sean Kelly wrote:
> The big deal with the full source for DMD being available is that if
> DigitalMars disappears in a puff of smoke tomorrow, customers have a
> means of preserving their investment in the language.

I just hope Walter survives!

Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 4:42 AM, Sean Kelly <sean@invisibleduck.org> wrote:
>> hasen wrote:
>>> Walter Bright wrote:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/82ck4/digitalmars_d_now_open_source/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/82cgp/new_release_of_the_d_programming_language_now/
>>> Wow there's a big fuss over there about it not being /really/ open source,
>> Seems kind of silly to me.  The big deal with the full source for DMD being
>> available is that if DigitalMars disappears in a puff of smoke tomorrow,
>> customers have a means of preserving their investment in the language.  This
>> can be a big deal for corporate users.
>>
> 
> I'm not sure I see the big value here. If Digital Mars indeed went up
> in smoke some day, how will the source help? They're still not allowed
> to do anything but "personal use" with it...

If they're just building apps then all they need it for is "personal use."

Georg Wrede wrote:
> Sean Kelly wrote:
>> The big deal with the full source for DMD being available is that if
>> DigitalMars disappears in a puff of smoke tomorrow, customers have a
>> means of preserving their investment in the language.
> 
> I just hope Walter survives!

Well yeah.  But that's the sort of question that comes up when evaluating technology for a large project.  It's a big selling point for Linux, etc, over Windows, for example as well.

Sean Kelly wrote:
> Seems kind of silly to me.  The big deal with the full source for DMD being available is that if DigitalMars disappears in a puff of smoke tomorrow, customers have a means of preserving their investment in the language.  This can be a big deal for corporate users.

Back in the 80's when I started out in the compiler business, we'd often get companies calling us up with:

"we really like your compiler, but there's one little issue, it needs to be modified to do X. If it does X, we'd buy 1000/5000/10000 copies!"

So I'd modify it to do X, and breathlessly contact them:

"it does X now! where's the P.O? We're ready to ship!"

Then they'd hem and haw a bit, and say:

"X is cool, great, yeah, but we really also need Y!"

It became clear after a while that they never had any intention of buying any copies. There are a lot of possible reasons why they were jerking our chain, but the strategy we came up with was:

"sure, we'd love to do X for you, our consulting rates are $$$ and we estimate xxx hours to do the job. We need a down payment to start work."

If they were serious, no problem, we did good business with them. The ones who were jerking us around for whatever reason went away.

There are people who won't use D, ever, no matter what we do, even if it spit out gold bars and ended world hunger. But they won't say that, they'll just sit on the sidelines and throw potshots. It comes with the territory of building a disruptive technology.

The ones I listen to are the ones who *are* using D and have some sweat equity in it.