On 13 August 2013 10:55, Joakim <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tuesday, 13 August 2013 at 08:30:26 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: >> >> On 8/12/2013 11:48 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote: >>> >>> On 2013-08-13 02:42, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: >>> >>>> Is is possible from a licensing standpoint to just distribute a copy of >>>> gmake built by gnuwin? >>> >>> >>> I don't see why we couldn't do that. It's a completely separate tool and >>> shouldn't "infect" anything else. We might need to accompany it with a >>> license >>> file and a link to the source code to be on the safe side. >>> >> >> Again, read my reply to Brad in this thread. > > > Presumably you are referring to this quote, which does not show up as a > reply? > > > "Oh, I forgot to mention, licensing. > > We want Phobos to be free of any restrictive licensing. GPL is restrictive, > and > so is LGPL. > > We very deliberately picked Boost. Having Phobos be a mix of GPL and Boost > would > utterly defeat picking Boost." > > If you're only talking about distributing a GPL-licensed gmake binary with > dmd/phobos, I don't think it has any impact on Phobos licensing, ie the GPL > would only apply to the gmake binary. The GPL is a very badly written > license, but I think it has been generally established that you can > distribute tools like gmake or g++ with your own code and that doesn't make > your own code have to be GPL, as long as gmake/g++ are only used to > process/compile your code and your own code doesn't integrate the source for > gmake/g++, ie gdc, which is almost never the case. >
Pardon? (I don't understand what point you are trying to put across about gdc, so I think it might be wrong ;-) -- Iain Buclaw *(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';
