Dmitry Olshansky, el 14 de June a las 18:18 me escribiste:
> 14-Jun-2014 04:46, Walter Bright пишет:
> >On 6/13/2014 4:31 AM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
> >>It's probably nice to have less restrictive license, but what we aim
> >>to achieve
> >>with that?
> >
> I do not want to come across as rude but from pragmatic standpoint
> it's not interesting. I'm not opposing it (after all I agreed to
> change it), I just don't see any valuable gains.
> >1. Boost is the least restrictive license
> This gains nothing in and by itself. 4 speaks of potential adv,
> which realistically is not something we desperately want. Maybe as a
> proactive move, that I could understand.
> >
> >2. Minimize friction for adopting D
> Let's not deluge ourselves, it does nothing to do that unlike many
> other things. Changing license of G++ frontend to boost won't make
> people adopt C++ any faster.
> The only place of friction is backend, and opening FE for commerce
> doesn't help it.
> >3. Harmonization with usage of Boost in the runtime library
> >
> In other words simplify licensing, but again compiler and runtime
> library do not have to have anything in common. There is no issue to
> begin with.
> >4. Allow commercial use of DMDFE (so what if someone does? It'll drive
> >even more adoption of D!)
> The only strictly valid point. Making commercial compilers and tools
> on D front-end is the only solid result this move enables.

Except is completely invalid!

No free license restrict commercial use. What using boost enable is only
proprietary use, i.e. changing the DMD FE and keeping the changes
private, even if you distribute the binary with the compiled DMDFE. As I
said before, there are licenses that allow anyone linking your code to
non-free code, but you still have to provide the source code of the
modified DMDFE if you distribute it. An example is LGPL.

> >5. Boost is well known and accepted
> All of licenses are well known. Again by itself it's not
> interesting, it won't make dmd any more easy to get into FOSS
> distros.

So, really, I all those 5 points are invalid.

All the license change allows is people using the work of others without
contributing back, without any real necessity like with the standard
library that contains templates or code that gets copy&pasted into the
users code.

OK, as a side effect of this, this might encourage companies not to use
D but to develop tools based on DMDFE, but companies that are too lazy
or to BAD not to contribute the changes back, which I'm not sure is such
a good idea.

Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)           
        -- Crónica TV

Reply via email to