Forgive me for raising this again, but I'm still a little confused by it.

In the following posting, Walter has indicated that the Phobos library is covered by a dual GPL/Artistic licence (unless the individual file says otherwise):

http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?D/24044


In the following posting Walter has indicated that D can be used for closed source projects:

http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?D/27211


I'm not sure that these two things are compatible.  Obviously, GPL is not suitable for closed source projects so in these cases the artistic licence will need to apply.

Can anyone confirm that the artistic licence does indeed allow for closed source commercial development?


Also, I'm a little concerned that there isn't one single licence covering all the modules in Phobos.  This seems to indicate that we will need to individually check the source for every Phobos module we wish to use, and then determine if the particular licence is compatible with a particular project.

Any feedback would be welcome, but I'd be particularly grateful for an "official" response from Walter.

Thanks,

Tony

"Tony" <talktotony@email.com> wrote in message news:c83qba$25v9$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> Forgive me for raising this again, but I'm still a little confused by it.
>
> In the following posting, Walter has indicated that the Phobos library is covered by a dual GPL/Artistic licence (unless the individual file says otherwise):
>
> http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?D/24044
>
>
> In the following posting Walter has indicated that D can be used for
closed
> source projects:
>
> http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?D/27211
>
>
> I'm not sure that these two things are compatible.  Obviously, GPL is not suitable for closed source projects so in these cases the artistic licence will need to apply.
>
> Can anyone confirm that the artistic licence does indeed allow for closed source commercial development?
>
>
> Also, I'm a little concerned that there isn't one single licence covering all the modules in Phobos.  This seems to indicate that we will need to individually check the source for every Phobos module we wish to use, and then determine if the particular licence is compatible with a particular project.
>
> Any feedback would be welcome, but I'd be particularly grateful for an "official" response from Walter.

I understand your concerns and the phobos license will be revised. You *can* do closed source, proprietary, commercial development with D and Phobos.