On Tue, 2016-05-31 at 10:09 +0000, Atila Neves via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> […]
> 
> No, no, no, no. We had LDC be the default already on Arch Linux for a while and it was a royal pain. I want to choose to use LDC when and if I need performance. Otherwise, I want my projects to compile as fast possible and be able to use all the shiny new features.

So write a new backend for DMD the licence of which allows DMD to be in Debian and Fedora.

-- 
Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

I have no idea how licensing would work in that regard but considering that DMDs backend is actively maintained and may eventually even be ported to D, wouldn't it at some point differ enough from Symantecs "original" backend to simply call the DMD backend its own thing?

Or are all the changes to the DMD backend simply changes to Symantecs backend period?

Then again even if that'd legally be fine after some point, someone would have to make the judgement call and that seems like a potentially large legal risk, so I guess even if it'd work that way it would be an unrealistic step.

On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 at 20:12:33 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-05-31 at 10:09 +0000, Atila Neves via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> […]
>> 
>> No, no, no, no. We had LDC be the default already on Arch Linux for a while and it was a royal pain. I want to choose to use LDC when and if I need performance. Otherwise, I want my projects to compile as fast possible and be able to use all the shiny new features.
>
> So write a new backend for DMD the licence of which allows DMD to be in Debian and Fedora.

LDC shouldn't be the default compiler to be included in Debian or Fedora. Reference compiler and the default D compiler in a particular distribution are two independent things.

On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 at 20:18:34 UTC, default0 wrote:
> I have no idea how licensing would work in that regard but considering that DMDs backend is actively maintained and may eventually even be ported to D, wouldn't it at some point differ enough from Symantecs "original" backend to simply call the DMD backend its own thing?

The way I understand it is that no matter how different a derivative work (such as any modification to DMD) gets, it's still a derivative work, and is subject to the terms of the license of the original work.

On Wednesday, 1 June 2016 at 01:26:53 UTC, Eugene Wissner wrote:
> On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 at 20:12:33 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
>> On Tue, 2016-05-31 at 10:09 +0000, Atila Neves via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>> […]
>>> 
>>> No, no, no, no. We had LDC be the default already on Arch Linux for a while and it was a royal pain. I want to choose to use LDC when and if I need performance. Otherwise, I want my projects to compile as fast possible and be able to use all the shiny new features.
>>
>> So write a new backend for DMD the licence of which allows DMD to be in Debian and Fedora.
>
> LDC shouldn't be the default compiler to be included in Debian or Fedora. Reference compiler and the default D compiler in a particular distribution are two independent things.

Exactly. But since we can legally distribute DMD in e.g. Debian, and DMD is the reference compiler, we will build software in Debian with a compiler that upstream might not have tested.
Additionally, new people usually try out a language with the default compiler found in their Linux distribution, and there is a chance that the reference compiler and default free compiler differ, which is just additional pain and plain weird in the Linux world.

E.g. think of Python. Everyone uses and tests with CPython, although there are other interpreters available. If CPython would be non-free, distros would need to compile with a free compiler, e.g. PyPy, which is potentially not feature complete, leading to a split in the Python ecosystem between what the reference compiler (CPython) does, and what people actually use in Linux distributions (PyPy). Those compilers might use different language versions, or have a different standard library or runtime, making the issue worse.
Fortunately, CPython is completely free, so we don't really have that issue ;-)

On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 at 20:18:34 UTC, default0 wrote:
> I have no idea how licensing would work in that regard but considering that DMDs backend is actively maintained and may eventually even be ported to D, wouldn't it at some point differ enough from Symantecs "original" backend to simply call the DMD backend its own thing?
>
> Or are all the changes to the DMD backend simply changes to Symantecs backend period?
>
> Then again even if that'd legally be fine after some point, someone would have to make the judgement call and that seems like a potentially large legal risk, so I guess even if it'd work that way it would be an unrealistic step.

Copyright law's answer to the Ship of Theseus paradox is that it's the same ship (i.e. derivative works are still covered under the original copyright).

On Sunday, 29 May 2016 at 03:52:33 UTC, open-source-guy wrote:
> Hi,
>
> this is a short ping about one of D's weaknesses - the restrictive license for the backend. IIRC [1, 2, 3] the status is that because some parts have been written by Walter while he was employed by Symantec, it can't get an open-source license.
> When I read the backend license [4], I read the following:
>
>> The Software is copyrighted and comes with a single user license,
> and may not be redistributed. If you wish to obtain a redistribution license,
> please contact Digital Mars.
>
> This actually means that all the 366 forks on Github would require approval by Digital Mars.
> So luckily neither Symantec nor Digital Mars seem to bother much about the license, so why can't it be changed in an free & open source license that allows
> free redistribution and modification?
>
> This would also make it possible to distribute dmd out-of-the-box on the two biggest Linux distributions Debian and Ubuntu [5, 6].
>
> [1] http://tomash.wrug.eu/blog/2009/03/06/free-the-dmd/
> [2] http://forum.dlang.org/post/ikwvgrccoyhvvizcjvxd@forum.dlang.org
> [3] https://semitwist.com/articles/article/view/dispelling-common-d-myths
>
> [4] https://github.com/dlang/dmd/blob/master/src/backendlicense.txt
> [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guidelines
> [6] https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-dfsg

Let's drop DMD and move to LDC (as the new DMD). Again and again people find bugs in the old backend. I know that it'll be hard for Bright to throw its little baby in the water but seriously it's not possible anymore.

Symantec is not interested to left its licence to Bright but they are probably neither interested to do anything with this bugged backend. Let's drop it.
If they wanna keep the rights on this ok. Let them their "so loved but not intersting" backend to them and move to something else for D default compiler.

On Thursday, 2 June 2016 at 17:04:25 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
> On Sunday, 29 May 2016 at 03:52:33 UTC, open-source-guy wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> this is a short ping about one of D's weaknesses - the restrictive license for the backend. IIRC [1, 2, 3] the status is that because some parts have been written by Walter while he was employed by Symantec, it can't get an open-source license.
>> When I read the backend license [4], I read the following:
>>
>>> The Software is copyrighted and comes with a single user license,
>> and may not be redistributed. If you wish to obtain a redistribution license,
>> please contact Digital Mars.
>>
>> This actually means that all the 366 forks on Github would require approval by Digital Mars.
>> So luckily neither Symantec nor Digital Mars seem to bother much about the license, so why can't it be changed in an free & open source license that allows
>> free redistribution and modification?
>>
>> This would also make it possible to distribute dmd out-of-the-box on the two biggest Linux distributions Debian and Ubuntu [5, 6].
>>
>> [1] http://tomash.wrug.eu/blog/2009/03/06/free-the-dmd/
>> [2] http://forum.dlang.org/post/ikwvgrccoyhvvizcjvxd@forum.dlang.org
>> [3] https://semitwist.com/articles/article/view/dispelling-common-d-myths
>>
>> [4] https://github.com/dlang/dmd/blob/master/src/backendlicense.txt
>> [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guidelines
>> [6] https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-dfsg
>
> Let's drop DMD and move to LDC (as the new DMD). Again and again people find bugs in the old backend. I know that it'll be hard for Bright to throw its little baby in the water but seriously it's not possible anymore.
>
> Symantec is not interested to left its licence to Bright but they are probably neither interested to do anything with this bugged backend. Let's drop it.
> If they wanna keep the rights on this ok. Let them their "so loved but not intersting" backend to them and move to something else for D default compiler.

I still would prefer if this "something else" would GDC .

On Thursday, 2 June 2016 at 17:32:25 UTC, Eugene Wissner wrote:
> On Thursday, 2 June 2016 at 17:04:25 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
>> On Sunday, 29 May 2016 at 03:52:33 UTC, open-source-guy wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> this is a short ping about one of D's weaknesses - the restrictive license for the backend. IIRC [1, 2, 3] the status is that because some parts have been written by Walter while he was employed by Symantec, it can't get an open-source license.
>>> When I read the backend license [4], I read the following:
>>>
>>>> The Software is copyrighted and comes with a single user license,
>>> and may not be redistributed. If you wish to obtain a redistribution license,
>>> please contact Digital Mars.
>>>
>>> This actually means that all the 366 forks on Github would require approval by Digital Mars.
>>> So luckily neither Symantec nor Digital Mars seem to bother much about the license, so why can't it be changed in an free & open source license that allows
>>> free redistribution and modification?
>>>
>>> This would also make it possible to distribute dmd out-of-the-box on the two biggest Linux distributions Debian and Ubuntu [5, 6].
>>>
>>> [1] http://tomash.wrug.eu/blog/2009/03/06/free-the-dmd/
>>> [2] http://forum.dlang.org/post/ikwvgrccoyhvvizcjvxd@forum.dlang.org
>>> [3] https://semitwist.com/articles/article/view/dispelling-common-d-myths
>>>
>>> [4] https://github.com/dlang/dmd/blob/master/src/backendlicense.txt
>>> [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guidelines
>>> [6] https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-dfsg
>>
>> Let's drop DMD and move to LDC (as the new DMD). Again and again people find bugs in the old backend. I know that it'll be hard for Bright to throw its little baby in the water but seriously it's not possible anymore.
>>
>> Symantec is not interested to left its licence to Bright but they are probably neither interested to do anything with this bugged backend. Let's drop it.
>> If they wanna keep the rights on this ok. Let them their "so loved but not intersting" backend to them and move to something else for D default compiler.
>
> I still would prefer if this "something else" would GDC .

When I look at how many messages there are on the GDC news group compared to LDC's one it's clear that GDC must has been more popular at a time. But this time is done.

On Thursday, 2 June 2016 at 17:54:10 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
> On Thursday, 2 June 2016 at 17:32:25 UTC, Eugene Wissner wrote:
>> On Thursday, 2 June 2016 at 17:04:25 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 29 May 2016 at 03:52:33 UTC, open-source-guy wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> this is a short ping about one of D's weaknesses - the restrictive license for the backend. IIRC [1, 2, 3] the status is that because some parts have been written by Walter while he was employed by Symantec, it can't get an open-source license.
>>>> When I read the backend license [4], I read the following:
>>>>
>>>>> The Software is copyrighted and comes with a single user license,
>>>> and may not be redistributed. If you wish to obtain a redistribution license,
>>>> please contact Digital Mars.
>>>>
>>>> This actually means that all the 366 forks on Github would require approval by Digital Mars.
>>>> So luckily neither Symantec nor Digital Mars seem to bother much about the license, so why can't it be changed in an free & open source license that allows
>>>> free redistribution and modification?
>>>>
>>>> This would also make it possible to distribute dmd out-of-the-box on the two biggest Linux distributions Debian and Ubuntu [5, 6].
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://tomash.wrug.eu/blog/2009/03/06/free-the-dmd/
>>>> [2] http://forum.dlang.org/post/ikwvgrccoyhvvizcjvxd@forum.dlang.org
>>>> [3] https://semitwist.com/articles/article/view/dispelling-common-d-myths
>>>>
>>>> [4] https://github.com/dlang/dmd/blob/master/src/backendlicense.txt
>>>> [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guidelines
>>>> [6] https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-dfsg
>>>
>>> Let's drop DMD and move to LDC (as the new DMD). Again and again people find bugs in the old backend. I know that it'll be hard for Bright to throw its little baby in the water but seriously it's not possible anymore.
>>>
>>> Symantec is not interested to left its licence to Bright but they are probably neither interested to do anything with this bugged backend. Let's drop it.
>>> If they wanna keep the rights on this ok. Let them their "so loved but not intersting" backend to them and move to something else for D default compiler.
>>
>> I still would prefer if this "something else" would GDC .
>
> When I look at how many messages there are on the GDC news group compared to LDC's one it's clear that GDC must has been more popular at a time. But this time is done.

Ok, if you say so :D