On 13 August 2013 20:34, Joakim <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > >
Right, the way you put it, looked like you were hinting that gdc was an example of code that doesn't integrate the source for g++... Anyway, IMO on the matter. Don't distribute binary blobs with source code. If they wish to build a tool/library from source, leave instructions in a README to tell them where to get all prerequisites (eg: link to a tarball) if their distributiion does not provide packages for said prerequisites already. -- Iain Buclaw *(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';
