October 15, 2015
On Thursday, 15 October 2015 at 19:40:16 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2015-10-15 14:51, Johannes Pfau wrote:
>
>> Doesn't the GPL force everybody _using_ fast.json to also use the GPL license?
>
> Yes, it does have that enforcement.

Then this is practically useless for the vast majority of programmers.
October 15, 2015
On Thursday, October 15, 2015 14:51:58 Johannes Pfau via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> BTW: Is there a reason why the code is GPL licensed? I understand that people might want to use more restrictive licenses, but isn't LGPL a better replacement for GPL when writing library code? Doesn't the GPL force everybody _using_ fast.json to also use the GPL license?
>
> See: http://stackoverflow.com/a/10179181/471401

I think that you might be able to link code with various other compatible, open source licenses against it, but you definitely can't link any proprietary code aganist it. GPL really makes more sense for programs than for libraries for precisely that reason. And most D libraries are likely to be Boost licensed, since that's the license used by Phobos and generally favored by the D community. There's nothing wrong with releasing a library under the GPL if you really want to, but it seriously limits its usefulness.

- Jonathan M Davis

October 15, 2015
On Thursday, October 15, 2015 09:40:05 Per Nordlöw via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> On Wednesday, 14 October 2015 at 07:01:49 UTC, Marco Leise wrote:
> > fast:      0.34s, 226.7Mb (GDC)
> > RapidJSON: 0.79s, 687.1Mb (GCC)
>
> Why not add this to std.experimental?

I thought that http://code.dlang.org/packages/std_data_json was the json implementation we were looking at adding to Phobos. Or did that fall through? I haven't paid much attention to the discussion on that, though I have used it in one of my own projects.

- Jonathan M Davis


October 16, 2015
On 2015-10-16 00:12, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:

> I think that you might be able to link code with various other compatible,
> open source licenses against it, but you definitely can't link any
> proprietary code aganist it. GPL really makes more sense for programs than
> for libraries for precisely that reason. And most D libraries are likely to
> be Boost licensed, since that's the license used by Phobos and generally
> favored by the D community. There's nothing wrong with releasing a library
> under the GPL if you really want to, but it seriously limits its usefulness.

Yes, that's correct. It would be fine if everything used GPL, but that's not the world we live in. Which makes the license not very practical.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
October 16, 2015
On 2015-10-16 00:14, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:

> I thought that http://code.dlang.org/packages/std_data_json was the json
> implementation we were looking at adding to Phobos. Or did that fall
> through? I haven't paid much attention to the discussion on that, though I
> have used it in one of my own projects.

Yes, that was the plan. But if a better alternative shows up, should we look at that as well?

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
October 16, 2015
On Friday, October 16, 2015 08:21:32 Jacob Carlborg via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> On 2015-10-16 00:14, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
>
> > I thought that http://code.dlang.org/packages/std_data_json was the json implementation we were looking at adding to Phobos. Or did that fall through? I haven't paid much attention to the discussion on that, though I have used it in one of my own projects.
>
> Yes, that was the plan. But if a better alternative shows up, should we look at that as well?

Sure, but going from std_data_json as being the candidate to talking about putting this other one in std.experimental seems a bit much. It needs to go through the review process first, and if we're doing that, it doesn't make sense to have two winners. They'll have to duke it out (or be merged), and then the one that wins can go in std.experimental.

- Jonathan M Davis

October 16, 2015
On 10/15/15 10:40 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2015-10-15 14:51, Johannes Pfau wrote:
>
>> Doesn't the GPL force everybody _using_ fast.json to also use the GPL
>> license?
>
> Yes, it does have that enforcement.

Then we'd need to ask Marco if he's willing to relicense the code with Boost. -- Andrei

October 16, 2015
On Thursday, 15 October 2015 at 22:13:07 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Thursday, October 15, 2015 14:51:58 Johannes Pfau via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
>> BTW: Is there a reason why the code is GPL licensed? I understand that people might want to use more restrictive licenses, but isn't LGPL a better replacement for GPL when writing library code? Doesn't the GPL force everybody _using_ fast.json to also use the GPL license?
>>
>> See: http://stackoverflow.com/a/10179181/471401
>
> I think that you might be able to link code with various other compatible, open source licenses against it, but you definitely can't link any proprietary code aganist it.

Yes, you can. GPL only affects distribution of executables to third party, it doesn't affect services. Maybe you are thinking of AGPL, which also affects services. But even AGPL allows internal usage.

October 16, 2015
On Wednesday, 14 October 2015 at 07:01:49 UTC, Marco Leise wrote:
> https://github.com/kostya/benchmarks#json

Does fast.json use any non-standard memory allocation patterns or plain simple GC-usage?
October 16, 2015
On 10/16/15 6:20 AM, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> On Thursday, 15 October 2015 at 22:13:07 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> On Thursday, October 15, 2015 14:51:58 Johannes Pfau via
>> Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
>>> BTW: Is there a reason why the code is GPL licensed? I understand
>>> that people might want to use more restrictive licenses, but isn't
>>> LGPL a better replacement for GPL when writing library code? Doesn't
>>> the GPL force everybody _using_ fast.json to also use the GPL license?
>>>
>>> See: http://stackoverflow.com/a/10179181/471401
>>
>> I think that you might be able to link code with various other
>> compatible, open source licenses against it, but you definitely can't
>> link any proprietary code aganist it.
>
> Yes, you can. GPL only affects distribution of executables to third
> party, it doesn't affect services. Maybe you are thinking of AGPL, which
> also affects services. But even AGPL allows internal usage.
>

No, you cannot link against GPL library without making your code also GPL. "Services" I don't think have anything to do with this, we are talking about binary linking.

-Steve