On 01/30/2011 11:33 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> == Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org)'s article
>> Beyond that, there is this site (I forgot the name) that allows people
>> to offer and ask money for certain projects. I guess that would be a way
>> to fund D projects.
>> Andrei
>
> You mean http://flattr.com ?

Found it in my browser history: www.fundry.com.

Andrei

Am 30.01.2011 18:23, schrieb Akakima:
> "Jonathan M Davis"<jmdavisProg@gmx.com>  a écrit
>
> Why are you trying to change the meaning of Open Source ?
>
> Open Source comes with principles. It comes with a spirit. It about freedom.
> It's about *freely* sharing knowledge, tools, ...
> It does not come for more rights for the one who started distributing the
> knowledge.
>
> AFAIK, D is not a trademarked language. So everybody can produce a compiler
> for it.
>
> DMD is Digital Mars D. The Digital Mars implementation of D.
> Digital Mars is the vendor of this compiler.
>
>
>
> See:
>
>
>
> enum Vendor; Master list of D compiler vendors.
>
>
>    DigitalMars Digital Mars
>    const Vendor vendor : Which vendor produced this compiler.
>
>    DMD is not Open Source.
>
>    The backend licence is not an open source license.
>
>    There is zero souce code for snn.lib (which is a part of DMD).
>
>    >
>    >  D is a programming language. There's nothing about D which would be for
> profit or
>    >  not for profit. You don't sell a programming language.
>    >
>    >  The compilers could be for profit if they were sold, but they aren't.
> All of them
>    >  are open source, with the only snag being that the license for dmd's
> backend is
>    >  such that you can see the source but not copy it and change it and
> whatnot. The
>    >  frontend is entirely open source however, and both gdc and LDC are
> entirely open
>    >  source. Regardless, they're all free to download and use.
>    >
>    >  You can probably buy enterprise support for dmd from Digital Mars like
> you can
>    >  with dmc, but I don't know anything about that, and that's buying
> support not
>    >  software.
>    >
>    >  It really doesn't make sense to ask whether D is for profit or not.
>
> Yes it does.
> Because one must look at the spirit. Not at the words.
>
> When we talk about "D". We talk of the whole. It's not about the 4th letter
> of the alphabet.
>
> Open Source community will glady help a truely Open Source Project.
> D has it's place there.
>
> A lot of individuals has worked very very hard to get there place under the
> Sun. They are trying to create a world where there is collaboration and no
> competition.
>
> Every body is welcomed to join the efforts.
>
>
>> Programming languages aren't for profit. Their tools may be, but you don't
>> buy or rent programming languages, so asking whether D is for profit or
>> not really doesn't make any sense.
>>
>> - Jonathan M Davis
>
>
 I think you're mixing up "Open Source" with "Free Software".

== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org)'s article
> On 01/30/2011 11:33 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> > == Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org)'s article
> >> Beyond that, there is this site (I forgot the name) that allows people
> >> to offer and ask money for certain projects. I guess that would be a way
> >> to fund D projects.
> >> Andrei
> >
> > You mean http://flattr.com ?
> Found it in my browser history: www.fundry.com.
> Andrei

Both look pretty much identical to me. :~)

On 1/30/11 6:41 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 01/30/2011 11:33 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>> == Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org)'s
>> article
>>> Beyond that, there is this site (I forgot the name) that allows people
>>> to offer and ask money for certain projects. I guess that would be a way
>>> to fund D projects.
>>> Andrei
>>
>> You mean http://flattr.com ?
>
> Found it in my browser history: www.fundry.com.
>
> Andrei

There is also http://kickstarter.com – not that I'd used a single one of them.

David

>  I think you're mixing up "Open Source" with "Free Software".

No.

Aren't you mixing up free with $ ?

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source

and read some of the history of the FSF.

There are free (0 $) products/software that comes with no source and a little freedom.

Some vendors associate free with 0$, an solely with $.
By doing this, they put a price on freedom.

Freedom begins by free. There is a reason for this.

Exchanging money is a legitimate way of exchanging energy. Problems arise when this is the only way of exchange.

I think Walter is making an effort to go Open Source. His intentions are not
clear to the mass because he never expressed them. He may not be at ease to
do so.
He sure did within the inner circle of D.

Look around. The world is becoming open.

There was a time, when Open Source was not invented, when giving away "source code", would have been viewed as a crime, a friend of mine, gaved me the source code of a fortran compiler.

That source code camed on microfilm. I was so excited. In a state of joy. I read all of it with a a microscope! I learned. I shared.

Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
> On 01/30/2011 12:56 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> On Saturday 29 January 2011 21:41:28 Jack wrote:
>>> Tell!
>>
>> No trolling please.
> 
> It's a legitimate question, one that's been asked many times, and one that I've never seen Walter answer. Instead, we have people who fill in answers for him.
> 
> I think it would make people more comfortable to know what Walter thinks with regard to D and money. Is he in it for money? If so, how does he plan to make it?
> 
> There's nothing wrong with being in it for money, but it would be nice to know up front and in what manner.

Paid speaking engagements, hosting conferences, paid support, training, consulting, etc.


>> D is a programming language. There's nothing about D which would be for profit or
>> not for profit. You don't sell a programming language.
> 
> Tell Google that programming languages aren't sold. They're being sued by Oracle for essentially implementing Java. One of the big reasons Oracle bought Sun was to get Java.

There are no D patents or trademarks.

retard wrote:
> For example I doubt that even if you donate one million USD, they won't rename the keywords or __traits into something readable or add built-in first class tuples.

$1,000,000 buys a lot.

> I also doubt you can make the dmc/dmd backend FOSS with any sum of money.

Sure you can. I don't know what the price would be, but Symantec is a profit seeking company. As far as I know, they have no personal or pride issues that would get in the way of a business decision.

Accepting donations makes me uncomfortable. If you want to support Digital Mars financially, please purchase one of our fine products at:

http://www.digitalmars.com/shop.html

get a D coffee cup at:

http://www.digitalmars.com/gift/index.html

buy a programming book at:

http://www.digitalmars.com/bibliography.html

or hire me to speak about D, programming, compilers, etc., at your company.

On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu < SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org> wrote:

> On 01/30/2011 08:27 AM, retard wrote:
>
>> I also doubt you can make
>> the dmc/dmd backend FOSS with any sum of money. If you wanted some
>> changes badly, I'd recommend donating the money to some democratic
>> community language without any BDFL persons.
>>
>
> I think that's just false. With money the backend could be bought from Symantec.
>
> Andrei
>

What is so great about this back-end (no offense)?  Why can it not be replaced with something like LLVM or GCC?  Why can we not have LDC or GDC be the official compiler?

Caligo <iteronvexor@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu <
> SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org> wrote:
>
>> On 01/30/2011 08:27 AM, retard wrote:
>>
>>> I also doubt you can make
>>> the dmc/dmd backend FOSS with any sum of money. If you wanted some
>>> changes badly, I'd recommend donating the money to some democratic
>>> community language without any BDFL persons.
>>>
>>
>> I think that's just false. With money the backend could be bought from
>> Symantec.
>>
>> Andrei
>>
>
> What is so great about this back-end (no offense)?  Why can it not be
> replaced with something like LLVM or GCC?  Why can we not have LDC or GDC be
> the official compiler?

Walter is intimately familiar with the current back-end, and he (perhaps
rightly) fears that if he looks at other back-ends, he is much more
likely to be sued for copyright infringement.

-- 
Simen

On Sunday 30 January 2011 10:14:58 Akakima wrote:
> >  I think you're mixing up "Open Source" with "Free Software".
> 
> No.
> 
> Aren't you mixing up free with $ ?
> 
> See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source
> 
> and read some of the history of the FSF.
> 
> There are free (0 $) products/software that comes with no source and a
> little freedom.
> 
> Some vendors associate free with 0$, an solely with $.
> By doing this, they put a price on freedom.
> 
> Freedom begins by free. There is a reason for this.
> 
> Exchanging money is a legitimate way of exchanging energy. Problems arise when this is the only way of exchange.
> 
> I think Walter is making an effort to go Open Source. His intentions are
> not clear to the mass because he never expressed them. He may not be at
> ease to do so.
> He sure did within the inner circle of D.
> 
> Look around. The world is becoming open.
> 
> There was a time, when Open Source was not invented, when giving away "source code", would have been viewed as a crime, a friend of mine, gaved me the source code of a fortran compiler.
> 
> That source code camed on microfilm. I was so excited. In a state of joy. I read all of it with a a microscope! I learned. I shared.

Yes, you're mixing up Open Source and Free Software. The FSF is about Free Software. They think that people have a right to source code, and that all source code should be free as in freedom. Open Source is much more pragmatic. It's about making the source available, because that results in better software. It's the difference between the philosophies of Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds. It's a huge difference in attitude.

They _do_ tend to use the same licenses, since open vs free is very much a matter of attitude and goal rather than code, but there are gradations in licenses with GLP v3 being more of a Free Software license whereas BSD or Boost are more along the lines of Open Source, because they have fewer restrictions. Typically though, there's no real difference between an Open Source and Free Software project from a coding perspective.

The dmd frontend is open source. The backend can't be because Symantec owns it, but the code is available to view, and you can submit patches. I believe that gdc and LDC are fully open source. Phobos and druntime use the Boost license. They're definitely open source. Whether the intention of any of the contributors to those projects is to support Open Source, Free Software, or just work on code that they need or like is completely up to them.

If you want to use dmd, gdc, or LDC in an open source or free software project, you are free to do so. If you want to use them in proprietary projects, then you are free to do so. I really don't think that the dmd, druntime, or Phobos team is trying to make any kind of political statement here. As a whole, we are emmenently practical. Some of us may very well be big supporters of Free Software. I don't know. You'll have to talk to individual developers to know exactly how they feel.

But as a whole, we're just trying to get a solid language with solid tools out there, because we love the language, we want it to succeed, and we want to use it.

- Jonathan M Davis