On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:12:34 -0000, John Reimer <terminal.node@gmail.com> wrote:

> dan wrote:
>> John Reimer Wrote:
>>> One advantage to a lack of outside subsidizing is that D is not controlled by these external forces (at least, not that I know of :) ).
>>  Rare and valuable in this day and age.
>>
>>> Mostly, I think D seems to depend on the fan element for it's viral effect, kind of a slow pervasive bubbling from the bottom up rather than coercion from the top (companies) down.  To me D represents another unusual and atypical movement much like Linux was for it's time.  D likely will follow a similar, albeit slow, growth curve.  I doubt that D is particularly comparable to any other "hot" language such that we can otherwise predict its outcome.
>>  My only major concern lies in that d isnt open source and is therefore bound to walter.  if he goes, so does D.
>>  Maybe we should get life insurance on him?
>
My understanding was that the D language specification was open 'source' but the DMD
compiler itself was not. I was sure I'd read this on the digital mars site somewhere
but I can't for the life of me find it.
>
> Life insurance?  Poor Walter. We're already talking about his demise. :(
>
I can't help worrying that one of the "vote++" people might "go postal" one day
when the reverse encoding of expanding variadic macro initialisers features isn't
added to D. Still, I suspect Walter knows someone who owns a big gun whether
or not he has one himself, so maybe it wouldn't be a problem. :)

Sean Kelly Wrote:

> Frits van Bommel wrote:
> > Peter C. Chapin wrote:
> >> dan wrote:
> >>
> >>> My only major concern lies in that d isnt open source and is therefore bound to walter.  if he goes, so does D.
> >>>
> >>> Maybe we should get life insurance on him?
> >>
> >> Is there any reason (I'm thinking legal, mostly) why someone else couldn't in principle independently implement a D compiler? The D community is reasonably large and full of smart people, so I'm sure the talent exists. Right now the motivation for creating a third party compiler is low, but if Walter disappeared that might change.
> > 
> > An independent D compiler isn't a problem. There are even several in the
> > works already.
> > The more likely problem is the D spec: it's copyrighted by Digital Mars,
> > so only Digital Mars (and those it authorizes[1] to do so) may
> > distribute it (and presumably nobody else may distribute modified
> > versions). So until copyright runs out (unless Walter/Digital Mars
> > transfers control of the spec over to some other person or
> > organization[2]) the only option for continued evolution of the language
> > may be a complete rewrite of the spec (perhaps based on the available
> > compiler, but not on the current spec).
> > 
> > 
> > [1] I'm not sure if anyone else is currently authorized; even Tango (which has permission to redistribute DMD itself) seems to leave the spec out of their binary distributions that include DMD.
> 
> Frankly, it's a topic we never broached with Walter.  We've simply been trying to keep the inclusion of Digital Mars stuff to a minimum as an act of good faith.

Walter,make it gnu if u pass on.  i dont trust anyone in particular to carry the torch.

Dan wrote:
> Sean Kelly Wrote:
> 
>> Frits van Bommel wrote:
>>> Peter C. Chapin wrote:
>>>> dan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> My only major concern lies in that d isnt open source and is therefore bound to walter.  if he goes, so does D.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe we should get life insurance on him?
>>>> Is there any reason (I'm thinking legal, mostly) why someone else
>>>> couldn't in principle independently implement a D compiler? The D
>>>> community is reasonably large and full of smart people, so I'm sure the
>>>> talent exists. Right now the motivation for creating a third party
>>>> compiler is low, but if Walter disappeared that might change.
>>> An independent D compiler isn't a problem. There are even several in the works already.
>>> The more likely problem is the D spec: it's copyrighted by Digital Mars, so only Digital Mars (and those it authorizes[1] to do so) may distribute it (and presumably nobody else may distribute modified versions). So until copyright runs out (unless Walter/Digital Mars transfers control of the spec over to some other person or organization[2]) the only option for continued evolution of the language may be a complete rewrite of the spec (perhaps based on the available compiler, but not on the current spec).
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] I'm not sure if anyone else is currently authorized; even Tango (which has permission to redistribute DMD itself) seems to leave the spec out of their binary distributions that include DMD.
>> Frankly, it's a topic we never broached with Walter.  We've simply been trying to keep the inclusion of Digital Mars stuff to a minimum as an act of good faith.
> 
> Walter,make it gnu if u pass on.  i dont trust anyone in particular to carry the torch.

(channeling Walter)
"It is gnu already.  GDC."

--bb

Bill Baxter wrote:
> Dan wrote:
>> Sean Kelly Wrote:
>>
>>> Frits van Bommel wrote:
>>>> Peter C. Chapin wrote:
>>>>> dan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> My only major concern lies in that d isnt open source and is therefore bound to walter.  if he goes, so does D.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe we should get life insurance on him?
>>>>> Is there any reason (I'm thinking legal, mostly) why someone else
>>>>> couldn't in principle independently implement a D compiler? The D
>>>>> community is reasonably large and full of smart people, so I'm sure the
>>>>> talent exists. Right now the motivation for creating a third party
>>>>> compiler is low, but if Walter disappeared that might change.
>>>> An independent D compiler isn't a problem. There are even several in the works already.
>>>> The more likely problem is the D spec: it's copyrighted by Digital Mars, so only Digital Mars (and those it authorizes[1] to do so) may distribute it (and presumably nobody else may distribute modified versions). So until copyright runs out (unless Walter/Digital Mars transfers control of the spec over to some other person or organization[2]) the only option for continued evolution of the language may be a complete rewrite of the spec (perhaps based on the available compiler, but not on the current spec).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [1] I'm not sure if anyone else is currently authorized; even Tango (which has permission to redistribute DMD itself) seems to leave the spec out of their binary distributions that include DMD.
>>> Frankly, it's a topic we never broached with Walter.  We've simply been trying to keep the inclusion of Digital Mars stuff to a minimum as an act of good faith.
>>
>> Walter,make it gnu if u pass on.  i dont trust anyone in particular to carry the torch.
> 
> (channeling Walter)
> "It is gnu already.  GDC."
> 
> --bb

Hmm... is it?  I thought that it wasn't unless all copyright is passed to  GNU... that was the main issue of why GNU will not include it in GCC.  They won't accept the code, and maintain it, unless they own all rights to it. And Walter wasn't willing (understandably) to relinquish all rights to them.  GDC is developed independently of GNU.

-JJR

On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 15:10:12 -0000, John Reimer <terminal.node@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>
>>> Walter,make it gnu if u pass on.  i dont trust anyone in particular to carry the torch.
>>  (channeling Walter)
>> "It is gnu already.  GDC."
>>  --bb
>
> Hmm... is it?  I thought that it wasn't unless all copyright is passed to  GNU... that was the main issue of why GNU will not include it in GCC.  They won't accept the code, and maintain it, unless they own all rights to it. And Walter wasn't willing (understandably) to relinquish all rights to them.  GDC is developed independently of GNU.
>
> -JJR

That makes sense. The DMD front end is open source but not copylefted.
From the dmd license:

"If you send any messages to Digital Mars, on either the Digital Mars
newsgroups, the Digital Mars mailing list, or via email, you agree not
to make any claims of intellectual
property rights over the contents of those messages.

The Software is copyrighted and comes with a single user license,
and may not be redistributed. If you wish to obtain a redistribution license,
please contact Digital Mars."

^ So we don't even own our own messages. Somehow I'm not sure that part of it will hold
up in court.

However, the source code tells a slightly different story:

// Copyright (c) 1999-2006 by Digital Mars
// All Rights Reserved
// written by Walter Bright
// www.digitalmars.com
// License for redistribution is by either the Artistic License
// in artistic.txt, or the GNU General Public License in gnu.txt.
// See the included readme.txt for details.

readme.txt
"These sources are free, they are redistributable and modifiable
under the terms of the GNU General Public License (attached as gpl.txt),
or the Artistic License (attached as artistic.txt)."

So it looks like its public domain not copyleft unless you want it to be copyleft
by way of your changes, which would be slightly difficult to support legally.
That would explain GNU rejecting it.

Bruce Adams wrote:
 > That makes sense. The DMD front end is open source but not copylefted.
>  From the dmd license:
> 
> "If you send any messages to Digital Mars, on either the Digital Mars
> newsgroups, the Digital Mars mailing list, or via email, you agree not
> to make any claims of intellectual
> property rights over the contents of those messages.
> 
> The Software is copyrighted and comes with a single user license,
> and may not be redistributed. If you wish to obtain a redistribution license,
> please contact Digital Mars."
> 
> ^ So we don't even own our own messages. Somehow I'm not sure that part of it will hold
> up in court.

No, it just means you promise not to sue DM over content of messages, that's what it's for.

'The Software' here includes the backend which has a different license than the frontend as you see in the source.

There's a difference between license and copyright: although the front-end is GPL the copyright is owned by Walter Bright and probably some other people who have contributed. As has been said, GNU demands that copyright is signed over to them, which isn't even possible in some countries. Giving up this copyright means that Walter cannot ever release the frontend or something based on it with a different license, but GNU can.

btw. I'm not a lawyer.