On 04/07/2017 05:44 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
>
>> 2. It's on all of the "Accepted OSS Licenses" lists that major corps have
>> because of Boost itself being used in those companies. If your license
>> isn't on
>> the list, your project isn't being used.
>
> Yup. We figured every corporation that uses C++ has accepted Boost, so
> this would be a no-brainer for them to accept D's license.
>

Anyone "in the know" have a any "inside scoop" regarding the such organization's perspective on the "zlib/libpng" license? I tend to favor it for my own OSS projects, since it's (in my perspective) at least as liberal as Boost, but very, very, ultra-easy to read/understand even for an everyday layman. But I would love to hear from anyone with more in-the-trenches experience how realistic that really plays out in the "real world".

I wonder if maybe it would be worth my while to dual-license my OSS dlang projects under both Boost and zlib/libpng. Anyone with real-world expertise in the area have any ("number five alive!") eeeenput?

On 04/07/2017 11:14 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
> https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680
>
> Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to relicense
> it. Thank you, Symantec!

Wow! This is HUGE news for D, and may I say, I think some *major* respect (and "props, j00!") are *well-deserved* here not only from Walter's work, but also by Symantec themselves.

AFAIK, Symantec were under no particular obligation here, but none-the-less chose the consumer/developer-friendly route, and I for one couldn't be more appreciative. I'm one who can be very critical of, well, everything, but the fine folks at Symantec have earned an enormous amount of respect from me, and dare I say, the whole D language community as well, in this one much-appreciated move. Major kudos, and eternal thanks to all involved :)

On 7 April 2017 at 23:49, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce <digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:
> Note that this also resolves the long-standing legal issue with D's inline assembler being backend licensed, and so not portable to gdc/ldc.
>

That makes the assumption that license was the reason why it's not included. ;-)

On 2017-04-07 17:14, Walter Bright wrote:
> https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680
>
> Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to relicense
> it. Thank you, Symantec!

This is some amazing news!! :)

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On 4/8/2017 1:19 AM, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) wrote:
> Anyone "in the know" have a any "inside scoop" regarding the such organization's
> perspective on the "zlib/libpng" license? I tend to favor it for my own OSS
> projects, since it's (in my perspective) at least as liberal as Boost, but very,
> very, ultra-easy to read/understand even for an everyday layman. But I would
> love to hear from anyone with more in-the-trenches experience how realistic that
> really plays out in the "real world".
>
> I wonder if maybe it would be worth my while to dual-license my OSS dlang
> projects under both Boost and zlib/libpng. Anyone with real-world expertise in
> the area have any ("number five alive!") eeeenput?

I'm no lawyer and have no idea and you should ask a real lawyer for real legal advice. But it stands to reason that the more widely used a license is, the more likely a corporate lawyer is familiar with it and has already approved it for use in the corporation. So why not just use Boost and be done with it?

On 4/8/2017 1:36 AM, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> On 7 April 2017 at 23:49, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce
> <digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:
>> Note that this also resolves the long-standing legal issue with D's inline
>> assembler being backend licensed, and so not portable to gdc/ldc.
>>
>
> That makes the assumption that license was the reason why it's not included. ;-)
>

Having an inline assembler is a lot less important than it used to be, so this is not a big issue. David also hinted that ldc wrote a work-alike, so this was likely an issue for them.

On 4/8/2017 1:33 AM, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) wrote:
> AFAIK, Symantec were under no particular obligation here, but none-the-less
> chose the consumer/developer-friendly route, and I for one couldn't be more
> appreciative. I'm one who can be very critical of, well, everything, but the
> fine folks at Symantec have earned an enormous amount of respect from me, and
> dare I say, the whole D language community as well, in this one much-appreciated
> move. Major kudos, and eternal thanks to all involved :)

Symantec has nothing to gain from this, they are doing it to be nice to us. In fact it cost them as some well paid people invested the time and did the leg work on our behalf.

It really is awesome.

On 8 April 2017 at 18:48, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce <digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On 4/8/2017 1:36 AM, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
>>
>> On 7 April 2017 at 23:49, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce <digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Note that this also resolves the long-standing legal issue with D's
>>> inline
>>> assembler being backend licensed, and so not portable to gdc/ldc.
>>>
>>
>> That makes the assumption that license was the reason why it's not included. ;-)
>>
>
> Having an inline assembler is a lot less important than it used to be, so this is not a big issue. David also hinted that ldc wrote a work-alike, so this was likely an issue for them.

To make sure you have your history correct.  GDC wrote the work-alike x86 assembler, and later dual-licensed it to share with LDC.  A little while later I dropped it from GDC as it was not really fit for purpose, and rather outside the scope of what I see should be handled at the language level in the compiler.

On 4/8/2017 10:16 AM, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> To make sure you have your history correct.  GDC wrote the work-alike
> x86 assembler, and later dual-licensed it to share with LDC.  A little
> while later I dropped it from GDC as it was not really fit for
> purpose, and rather outside the scope of what I see should be handled
> at the language level in the compiler.


Thanks for clarifying. I did not know that history.

On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 15:14:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680
>
> Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to relicense it. Thank you, Symantec!

Good news! Thank you!

I gave a hint of this - additionally mentioning Dconf - to heise.de, with success:

Programmiersprache D: Referenzcompiler DMD unter freier Lizenz

https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Programmiersprache-D-Referenzcompiler-DMD-unter-freier-Lizenz-3678894.html

I propose that the D Language Foundation releases an official press release about the new situation  and send it to all important it/computer magazines.

May be we can talk about pr strategy for D in general at Dconf.

Regards mt.