Karl Bochert wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 17:42:12 +0200, "Fabian Giesen" <rygNO@SPAMgmx.net> wrote:
> 
>>>If Walter's compiler contains ("in whole or in part") GPL'd code,
>>>then it
>>>must be licenced "as a whole" under the GPL.
>>>If you or I use it to create a new work, that too must be coverd by
>>>the GPL.
>>>
>>>Worse yet is that this applies to the libraries. If you write a D
>>>program that
>>>calls  a single function in one of Walter's GPL'd libraries, that is
>>>enough
>>>to make your program GPL.
>>>
>>>There is an LGPL licence which, if applied to a library, would allow
>>>its
>>>usage in a non-GPL'd product.
>>
>>The libraries *aren't* GPLed. In fact, they don't contain any kind of
>>license agreement.
>>
> 
> That seems dangerous. If they are aggregated with a GPL'd compiler
> dont they automatically become GPL'd?
> If only the compiler is GPL'd, is it not aggregated with possibly internal
> runtime librarys which would contaminate its output? 
> 
> 
>>Furthermore, the D compiler frontend license that its sources can be
>>treated as licensed by either the Artistic license or the GPL.
> 
> 
> How does that work? Are the separate versions for the 2 licences?
> I know that the Artistic licence is compatible with GPL, but doesn't the GPL
> take precedence?
> 
> I don't know how many others feel this way, but the mere mention of GPL
> in a piece of software says to me that  the software is probably infected with
> the virus. Come to think of it, if an author releases any piece of GPL
> software, can I be sure that some other work released by him is not contaminated?
>  The
> 
>>Artistic license is far less restrictive than the GPL, and among other
>>things its not viral.
> 
> The Artistic license is acceptable, but if it is co-licensed with GPL, does
> not GPL's viral nature take over?
> 
> 
>>I guess the GPL co-licensing is just there in the
>>first place because Walter intends to give the OpenD people the chance to
>>make the whole project GPL.
> 
> 
> What is 'co-licensing' anyway?
> Is the intention that OpenD release a GPL compiler, while Walter releases
> an Artistic License compiler, and the user could choose his license that way?
> When I download D, is there some way I should specify  which license? 
> 
> Also I see the term "disjunctive license" Anyone know what that is?
> 
> Could not Walter release D just under the Artistic License? Then OpenD
> could combine Walter's D with a piece of GPL code, thereby creating a work
> covered by GPL?
> 
> I would think that Walter must either release D as GPL or not.
> 
> 
> Confused..
> Karl Bochert
> 
> 
> 

The "viral" nature of the GPL is overstated sometimes.  If you wrote some code, (or were given the right to) you can release that code under any license you want, to whomever you want, even if you've previously released it as GPL before.

"Fabian Giesen" <rygNO@SPAMgmx.net> wrote in message news:bd9rb4$1m0e$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> The libraries *aren't* GPLed. In fact, they don't contain any kind of license agreement.

They deliberately are not GPLed so people can make commercial non-GPL apps with D.

On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 17:46:16 -0700, Andy Friesen <andy@ikagames.com> wrote:
> Karl Bochert wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 17:42:12 +0200, "Fabian Giesen" <rygNO@SPAMgmx.net> wrote:
> > 

> > 
> > Confused..
> > Karl Bochert
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> The "viral" nature of the GPL is overstated sometimes.  If you wrote some code, (or were given the right to) you can release that code under any license you want, to whomever you want, even if you've previously released it as GPL before.

But if that code is aggregated in any way with some GPL'd code, I must use GPL.

If I release identical code under GPL and another licence, then the code contains GPL notices and both versions are GPL, regardless of what I claim. My only choice is to remove all  GPL licences from the other version and maintain 2 versions of the source code, and heaven help my customers if I goof.

If I release some code under GPL, does not that make it GPL'd for me too? After all, I now have a piece of GPL software. In the GPL I see no exemption for the author.

The fact that I have GPL'd the code allows me to un-GPL it?

Still suspicious
Karl Bochert

Karl Bochert wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 17:46:16 -0700, Andy Friesen <andy@ikagames.com> wrote:
>>The "viral" nature of the GPL is overstated sometimes.  If you wrote some code, (or were given the right to) you can release that code under any license you want, to whomever you want, even if you've previously released it as GPL before.
> 
> 
> But if that code is aggregated in any way with some GPL'd code, I must
> use GPL.

No.  Only if you're linking (statically or dynamically) to GPL code. Only then.  This would apply to Phobos, if it were GPL.  But it's not, and I doubt it ever will be, for exactly this reason.

> If I release identical code under GPL and another licence, then the code
> contains GPL notices and both versions are GPL, regardless of what I
> claim. My only choice is to remove all  GPL licences from the other version
> and maintain 2 versions of the source code, and heaven help my customers
> if I goof.

You still own the code, and are free to relicense the code to them at will.  One phone call is all it would take to resolve such a disaster. :)

> If I release some code under GPL, does not that make it GPL'd for me too?
> After all, I now have a piece of GPL software. In the GPL I see no
> exemption for the author.

No, you are the copyright holder, you are *licensing* the code to others.  Those others are bound by the agreement, in exchange for the use of your code.  By the same token, they are free to ask that a new agreement be made.

> The fact that I have GPL'd the code allows me to un-GPL it?

More like the fact that you are the sole copyright holder (or all the copyright holders are in agreement).  You are still completely free to license your property as you see fit.

The GPL can't undermine copyright law, especially since it derives much of its strength from it.

Worth considering is the OpenOffice Joint Copyright Agreement model for
contributions to Phobos and D.  That arrangement vastly simplifies the
legalities of license management and avoids the kind of mess that Mozilla got
itself into.
http://www.openoffice.org/contributing.html

Independent of copyright ownership issues, dual licensing is superfluous.  Any loose, BSDish license qualifies as GPL-compatible.  There is no need to add complexity.  Here is a list. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses

Walter - thank you for being open to as many philosophical camps as possible on the licensing issue.

Mark


Andy Friesen says...
>
>No.  Only if you're linking (statically or dynamically) to GPL code. Only then.  This would apply to Phobos, if it were GPL.  But it's not, and I doubt it ever will be, for exactly this reason.
>
>
>More like the fact that you are the sole copyright holder (or all the copyright holders are in agreement).  You are still completely free to license your property as you see fit.
>
>The GPL can't undermine copyright law, especially since it derives much of its strength from it.
>

> Independent of copyright ownership issues, dual licensing is superfluous.  Any loose, BSDish license qualifies as GPL-compatible.

You mean not actually GPL-compatible but "GPL-able"
(suitable for redistribution under GPL)?

Sz.

> That seems dangerous. If they are aggregated with a GPL'd compiler dont they automatically become GPL'd?

No, of course not. The libraries are seperate pieces of software that don't have anything to do with the actual compiler.

If the compiler would depend on the runtime libraries to work, that would be another issue, but as-is the runtime libraries are basically just data files used by the linker, as far as licensing goes anyway.

-fg

There is a whole class of (open-source) licenses, which don't qualify as GPL-compatible, because codee licensed with these cannot be used in GPL projects due to certain requierements stated in GPL.

e.g. the old BSD license doesn't, since it requieres mentioning the author of the code in the final product, and many others don't due to some minor subtleties, or distribution limitations and somesuch.

I believe the new BSD license is quite simple and good, it's compatible to GPL and to almost any other license. Well, as opposed to GPL it offers one no protection whatsoever...

-i.

Luna Kid wrote:
> You mean not actually GPL-compatible but "GPL-able"
> (suitable for redistribution under GPL)?
> 
> Sz.

In article <bdbgdp$17m1$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Mark Evans says...
>
>
>Worth considering is the OpenOffice Joint Copyright Agreement model for
>contributions to Phobos and D.  That arrangement vastly simplifies the
>legalities of license management and avoids the kind of mess that Mozilla got
>itself into.
>http://www.openoffice.org/contributing.html
>
>Independent of copyright ownership issues, dual licensing is superfluous.  Any loose, BSDish license qualifies as GPL-compatible.  There is no need to add complexity.  Here is a list. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses

It seems that Walter should release the front end only under the Artistic license so there would be no GPL confusion and potential legal issues. The bottom line is that Walter is encouraging D to be a open language as opposed to a closed language like Delphi.

I hope D is quite successful and Walter can make a few bucks from it.