On Tuesday, 13 August 2013 at 10:09:11 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
On 13 August 2013 10:55, Joakim <[email protected]> wrote:
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 ;-)
You seem to have a lot of problems reading what's written. ;) The
point was that if you are distributing dmd and phobos source with
GPL binary tools like gmake or g++, which are then only compiled
by those binaries, there is no problem with the GPL. You only
need to provide the source for gmake and g++. If you were
distributing gdc, which actually integrates with the same
compiler backend source as g++, then you have to include the
source for the gdc frontend and whatever other glue files it
uses. Since most source code doesn't integrate with the gcc
compiler backend, the GPL licensing of gmake/g++ is not a problem
for most projects, including dmd.
On Tuesday, 13 August 2013 at 16:11:44 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 11:55:12AM +0200, Joakim wrote:
[...]
Personally, I like the D-based build system idea. Distribute
dmd/phobos with a D-based build tool like dub, which has been
compiled ahead of time for each supported platform and will
compile
D for you, if you want. Of course, this means that you'll
still
need to maintain makefiles on the D build machines that will
build
dub for the D maintainers to distribute, but it isolates all
the
complexity of makefiles from end users, so they don't have to
touch
any of that stuff. Whether that ease of use is worth the extra
effort, I don't know.
There's no need to maintain any makefiles once the D build tool
is
usable. As long as you have a working binary of dmd that can
compile the
tool, that's good enough.
I thought you'd still need the makefiles around for the rare
occasion when you bootstrap to a new platform, as the D-based
build tool won't compile there initially. Perhaps I'm wrong, I
don't know much about all the vagaries involved with
bootstrapping.
On Tuesday, 13 August 2013 at 18:10:06 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 8/13/2013 2:55 AM, Joakim 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?
Nobody seems to have read it or be able to find it, it has no
replies, so I quote it here:
I think we've all seen that post. The problem is that Andrei,
and Jacob later, were only asking about licensing issues with
gmake, but your pasted response to Brad didn't mention licensing.
You're probably right that distributing gmake is problematic on
technical and "ease of use" grounds. I was just making a narrow
point that the GPL likely isn't an issue, which is what Andrei
and Jacob asked about.
