On 09/26/15 23:58, Laeeth Isharc via Digitalmars-d wrote: >> Given the DMD licensing situation, __nobody__ will (or should) even look >> inside the DMD repo for info. Especially that
Note that the above is not what I actually wrote, but has been altered with no mention of this fact. It's hard enough to convey tone via email; such manipulations don't help. > He's entitled to his view, but normally one is taken more seriously if one > makes a reasoned argument for a strong view (which he declined to do in that > previous thread). Prudence is a virtue, but it's not quite the same thing as > blanket aversion to all possible risks - each must judge for himself, but > advising others like this goes quite far. It's not advice, but a statement of fact. Well, the `(or should)` part /is/, but it was parenthesized for a reason - it's not the main point, but only a preemptive response to any potential "but they should" reply. Obviously, "nobody" in this context does not literally mean "nobody", but nobody from the set of people with an interest in the subject that might potentially create open source or otherwise differently licensed works. The latter subset can in theory be the same as the whole set (it will be smaller in practice, yes). Considering that this discussion is about an apparently undocumented file format that Manu would like to see supported in a differently licensed work (LLVM) and thinks that Walter and/or DMD is a good, or even unique, source for info about, then yes -- _nobody_ (that would like to use the information to indirectly incorporate in into LLVM) will look for it inside some other proprietary compiler. At least, they are _not_supposed_to_, and really shouldn't. Even without malicious intent it's too easy for the result to be similar enough that somebody can claim it's a derivative work. And even when such a claim is obviously bogus, you do not want to have to deal with it. Hence, as it appears that the code in question is boost licensed, (re-)publishing it in a way that would limit the "contamination" concerns might help Manu's cause, and does not require Walter do much more than a git clone+add+commit+push. Convincing a LLVM developer to support a file format that's documented in a single boost licensed file is going to be much easier than suggesting that they obtain the info from a non-free non-redistributable compiler source from another vendor. And by "much easier" I mean "possible", because the other option simply isn't (and shouldn't). Now, I don't know if the info in that file really is as unique as Manu says, plus because of this thread it already became much more accessible, so it's possible that the issue has been already solved. But every other `free-but-entangled-with-non-free` part of DMD has the same problem. "Let's look inside works we can't legally use, just in case there's some usable part inside" is not a viable option. Really. artur
