I noticed that the Gnu D Compiler is (predictably) covered under the GPL.

While I realise that the license of the compiler itself shouldn't affect the license of the code it produces, are there any other issues which might force your compiled D code to be covered under the GPL?  Or under any license other than what the author chooses?

For example, might it add some GPLed library functions to the runtime (thus make your code a derived work and forcing the adoption of a GPL license?)

Tony
Melbourne, Australia
tonysZ-mailboxZ@hotmailZ.com  (remove the Zs)

Tony wrote:

> I noticed that the Gnu D Compiler is (predictably) covered under the GPL.

It uses large parts of gcc and g++, so this is something of a necessity.

DMD (the frontend) is under a "Dual" license of both GPL and Artistic,
while GDC (the adapation of the frontend to GCC) is under the GPL only.

> While I realise that the license of the compiler itself shouldn't affect the license of the code it produces, are there any other issues which might force your compiled D code to be covered under the GPL?  Or under any license other than what the author chooses?
> 
> For example, might it add some GPLed library functions to the runtime (thus make your code a derived work and forcing the adoption of a GPL license?)

The Phobos library is zlib/png license*, and the C runtime under LGPL,
so there should be no such GPL issues... Then again, I am not a lawyer.

But it shouldn't be different from using say C or C++, on Mac OS X ?

--anders

* for the most part, see
  http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?PhobosLicenseIssues

"Anders F Björklund" <afb@algonet.se> wrote in message news:dteg3q$smm$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Tony wrote:
>
>> I noticed that the Gnu D Compiler is (predictably) covered under the GPL.
>
> It uses large parts of gcc and g++, so this is something of a necessity.
>
> DMD (the frontend) is under a "Dual" license of both GPL and Artistic,
> while GDC (the adapation of the frontend to GCC) is under the GPL only.
>
>> While I realise that the license of the compiler itself shouldn't affect the license of the code it produces, are there any other issues which might force your compiled D code to be covered under the GPL?  Or under any license other than what the author chooses?
>>
>> For example, might it add some GPLed library functions to the runtime (thus make your code a derived work and forcing the adoption of a GPL license?)
>
> The Phobos library is zlib/png license*, and the C runtime under LGPL, so there should be no such GPL issues... Then again, I am not a lawyer.

Thanks for the information.

If the C runtime is under LGPL, does this mean that compiled code is a derivative work of the C runtime and thus also has to be placed under LGPL or GPL?  Or am I totally misunderstanding the situation ?


> But it shouldn't be different from using say C or C++, on Mac OS X ?
>
> --anders
>
> * for the most part, see
>   http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?PhobosLicenseIssues

Tony wrote:

> If the C runtime is under LGPL, does this mean that compiled code is a derivative work of the C runtime and thus also has to be placed under LGPL or GPL?  Or am I totally misunderstanding the situation ?

Actually I meant that as a *good* thing :-) (glibc being LGPL, not GPL)

Anyway, on Mac OS X it should use Apple's system libraries and C library so there should be no GPL components in the resulting program binary...

At least that is how the gdcmac builds are intended, targetting Apple's.
(it's also possible to build a fully GNU version of GCC/G++/GDC, but...)

--anders

In article <dte9v0$lh2$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Tony says...
>
>I noticed that the Gnu D Compiler is (predictably) covered under the GPL.
>
>While I realise that the license of the compiler itself shouldn't affect the license of the code it produces, are there any other issues which might force your compiled D code to be covered under the GPL?  Or under any license other than what the author chooses?
>
>For example, might it add some GPLed library functions to the runtime (thus make your code a derived work and forcing the adoption of a GPL license?)
>
>Tony
>Melbourne, Australia
>tonysZ-mailboxZ@hotmailZ.com  (remove the Zs)
>
>

Absolutely not, that would kill any real future for D

"Tony" <ignorethis@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:dte9v0$lh2$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>I noticed that the Gnu D Compiler is (predictably) covered under the GPL.
>
> While I realise that the license of the compiler itself shouldn't affect the license of the code it produces, are there any other issues which might force your compiled D code to be covered under the GPL?  Or under any license other than what the author chooses?
>
> For example, might it add some GPLed library functions to the runtime (thus make your code a derived work and forcing the adoption of a GPL license?)

There are no GPLed library functions in the D runtime library Phobos, and there won't be. Phobos code will be either public domain or copyrighted and free for any use whatsoever.