Hello!

First let me say that I really like the D language, I think it is a great development. I like the idea of a practical language for practical programmers.

I wanted to ask you what is the license of D?. I've seen that the D compiler
comes with a "license.txt" that does not allow redistribution. But on some
source files it says that it is covered by the GNU General Public License
or the artistic license. I think that the best would be if D were distributed
under a free software license (like GNU GPL) since this is the best way for
D to become popular, and this would allow all the free software comunity to
help the D development (for example, someone could make a port of the D
compiler for FreeBSD if the source code is avaliable and the license allows
to change it)

I'm very happy that now there is a version of D for Linux. First, since I'm
a Linux programmer, and second because C is closely related to Unix, and
then it is difficult to think of D as an improvent of C, if it is not avaliable
for Unix.

It would be very nice to have a front end of the gcc for the D language, but it seems that this port is now dead. Is someone still working on that?

Thank you, best regards





Pablo De Napoli
(Argentina)

"Pablo De Napoli" <Pablo_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:bd7mdc$1mdn$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> First let me say that I really like the D language, I think it is a great development. I like the idea of a practical language for practical
programmers.

So do I!

> I wanted to ask you what is the license of D?. I've seen that the D
compiler
> comes with a "license.txt" that does not allow redistribution. But on some source files it says that it is covered by the GNU General Public License or the artistic license. I think that the best would be if D were
distributed
> under a free software license (like GNU GPL) since this is the best way
for
> D to become popular, and this would allow all the free software comunity
to
> help the D development (for example, someone could make a port of the D compiler for FreeBSD if the source code is avaliable and the license
allows
> to change it)

Because some of the code in the D compiler is licensed, it cannot all be made GPL. However, you are free to make a fully GPL implementation of D using the GPL'd parts of it.

> It would be very nice to have a front end of the gcc for the D language,
but
> it seems that this port is now dead. Is someone still working on that?

All it takes is someone like you interested in working on it.

>
>Because some of the code in the D compiler is licensed, it cannot all be made GPL. However, you are free to make a fully GPL implementation of D using the GPL'd parts of it.
>

Walter please post a web page somewhere clarifying which parts are GPL and which aren't.  On the new D wiki pages?

I have the D source but don't fancy examining every single file by hand.  Some general guidance would help.

Mark

> Walter please post a web page somewhere clarifying which parts are GPL and which aren't.  On the new D wiki pages?
>
> I have the D source but don't fancy examining every single file by hand.  Some general guidance would help.

The released source is only the frontend, which is completely free. The problem is the compiler backend (and probably the toolchain too).

-fg

On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 13:54:14 -0700, "Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote:
> 
> "Pablo De Napoli" <Pablo_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:bd7mdc$1mdn$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > First let me say that I really like the D language, I think it is a great development. I like the idea of a practical language for practical
> programmers.
> 
> So do I!
> 
> > I wanted to ask you what is the license of D?. I've seen that the D
> compiler
> > comes with a "license.txt" that does not allow redistribution. But on some source files it says that it is covered by the GNU General Public License or the artistic license. I think that the best would be if D were
> distributed
> > under a free software license (like GNU GPL) since this is the best way
> for
> > D to become popular, and this would allow all the free software comunity
> to
> > help the D development (for example, someone could make a port of the D compiler for FreeBSD if the source code is avaliable and the license
> allows
> > to change it)
> 
> Because some of the code in the D compiler is licensed, it cannot all be made GPL. However, you are free to make a fully GPL implementation of D using the GPL'd parts of it.

Is it possible to be !partly! GPL ??

Section 2B:
 You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part
contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed
as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

GPL is infectious!


Karl Bochert
> 
> > It would be very nice to have a front end of the gcc for the D language,
> but
> > it seems that this port is now dead. Is someone still working on that?
> 
> All it takes is someone like you interested in working on it.
> 
> 
> 

> Is it possible to be !partly! GPL ??
> 
> Section 2B:
>  You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed
> as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. 
> 
> GPL is infectious!
> 
> 
> Karl Bochert

You're perfectly free to use the existing frontend code for any GPL application.  But, any changes you make become covered by the GPL.

However, if you make any changes to the frontend, Walter would be unable to reintegrate those changes into DMD, unless you agree to license the code to him under something that's not "viral" like the GPL is. (or unless Walter is willing to GPL the entire thing)

On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 20:09:20 -0700, Andy Friesen <andy@ikagames.com> wrote:
> > Is it possible to be !partly! GPL ??
> > 
> > Section 2B:
> >  You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part
> > contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed
> > as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
> > 
> > GPL is infectious!
> > 
> > 
> > Karl Bochert
> 
> You're perfectly free to use the existing frontend code for any GPL application.  But, any changes you make become covered by the GPL.
> 
> However, if you make any changes to the frontend, Walter would be unable to reintegrate those changes into DMD, unless you agree to license the code to him under something that's not "viral" like the GPL is. (or unless Walter is willing to GPL the entire thing)
>

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.

I would not even consider using a GPL'd product, given that I may need to feed myself one day :-)

Karl Bochert

> 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.

Furthermore, the D compiler frontend license that its sources can be treated as licensed by either the Artistic license or the GPL. The Artistic license is far less restrictive than the GPL, and among other things its not viral. 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.

-fg

"Fabian Giesen" <rygNO@SPAMgmx.net> wrote in message news:bd9rb4$1m0e$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Furthermore, the D compiler frontend license that its sources can be treated as licensed by either the Artistic license or the GPL. The Artistic license is far less restrictive than the GPL, and among other things its not viral. 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.

That's right.

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