Re: dmd front end now switched to Boost license
On Sunday, 15 June 2014 at 01:08:00 UTC, Leandro Lucarella wrote: Joakim, el 14 de June a las 19:31 me escribiste: The frontend was dual-licensed under the Artistic license, which also allows such proprietary use, so nothing has really changed. Mmm, even when is true that the Artistic license is a bit more permissive than the GPL in some aspects, I think is hardly suitable for doing serious proprietary software (that you intent to sell). From the artistic license that was distributed by DMD: You may not charge a fee for this Package itself. However, you may distribute this Package in aggregate with other (possibly commercial) programs as part of a larger (possibly commercial) software distribution provided that you do not advertise this Package as a product of your own. Is a bit hairy, I don't think any companies would want to do proprietary tools using the artistic license :) https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/blob/083271a415716cf3e35321f91826397d91c0a731/src/artistic.txt I was referring to this clause from the Artistic license: 4. You may distribute the programs of this Package in object code or executable form, provided that you do at least ONE of the following: a) distribute a Standard Version of the executables and library files, together with instructions (in the manual page or equivalent) on where to get the Standard Version. So you could have always distributed a modified, closed ldc with the frontend under the Artistic license- it would have to be ldc as the dmd backend is proprietary- as long as you also provided an unmodified ldc along with it. I don't think the part of the Artistic license you excerpted would apply to such a modified program, but even if the advertising part applied, I doubt any commercial user would care. Usually those who take your code _don't want_ to advertise where they got it from. ;) I realize you prefer the LGPL, to force others to contribute back to the frontend if they modify and distribute it, but the Boost license is much simpler and as Walter points out, proprietary use can help D's adoption. Again, I think from the practical point of view is the same. If you use boost license and tons of proprietary tools come out CHANGING the DMDFE and not contributing back, then the D community might get a boost because the have better tools but they are missing the contributions, so is hard to tell if the balance would be positive or negative. If they don't change the DMDFE (or contribute back the changes), then using boost or LGPL are the same, because it doesn't matter. Having better-quality paid tools would be a big boost, whether they released their patches or not. You point out that commercial users could always link against a LGPL frontend as a library and put their proprietary modifications in their own separate library, but that can be very inconvenient, depending on the feature. Also, I've pointed out a new model on this forum before, where someone could release a closed, paid D compiler but have a contract with their customers that all source code for a particular binary will be released within a year or two. This way, you get the best of both worlds, revenue from closed-source patches and the patches are open-sourced eventually. Such mixed models or other experimentation is possible under the freedom of more permissive licenses like Boost, but is usually much harder to pull off with the LGPL, as you'd be forced to separate all proprietary code from the LGPL frontend.
Re: dmd front end now switched to Boost license
On Saturday, 14 June 2014 at 19:27:44 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote: don't think those are the only important criteria. The thing is, D's licensing overall (DMDFE/DMDBE/LDC/GDC/Phobos) is kinda complicated. So any simplification, as long as it doesn't restrict anyone, is a net improvement, even if it isn't earth-shattering. Indeed. Having a single license makes the project look focused rather than a conglomerate moving in different directions.
Re: dmd front end now switched to Boost license
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 02:20:11 +0200, Leandro Lucarella via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: I just wanted to point out that there might be more ethical licenses to achieve the same effect (allowing companies to build proprietary tools on top on DMDFE). There's MPL which is source-file-based copyleft (rather than link-time copyleft). --Ben
Re: dmd front end now switched to Boost license
On 6/13/2014 8:15 PM, Mathias LANG wrote: On Friday, 13 June 2014 at 11:31:10 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote: 13-Jun-2014 04:31, Walter Bright пишет: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/3655 Heh, I had been under the impression was already Boost. :P It's probably nice to have less restrictive license, but what we aim to achieve with that? Make commercial companies contribute to DMD more freely? There is no problem even with GPL. Let them build and sell their own products out of DMDFE? Highly unlikely to be a profitable anyway, and we'd better get back the patches. Wild guess: DMD in fedora, debian et al. repositories ? I doubt it. First, it's the backend that's not technically OSI, frontend was (apparently) GPL. Second, I can't imagine any Linux distro rejecting GPL - they'd have to boot the kernel and core utils, too. Boost has kinda become the favored D license anyway, Phobos etc., so it probably has a lot to do with that. Kinda weird to have the compiler and stdlib under different licenses.
Re: dmd front end now switched to Boost license
On Saturday, 14 June 2014 at 06:07:08 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote: I doubt it. First, it's the backend that's not technically OSI, frontend was (apparently) GPL. Second, I can't imagine any Linux distro rejecting GPL - they'd have to boot the kernel and core utils, too. Actually, the frontend was dual-licensed under the Artistic license and the GPL and dmd binaries were provided under the former, as the GPL doesn't allow linking against a non-GPL backend. The GPL alternative was likely for gdc to link the frontend against the GPL'd gcc backend.
Re: dmd front end now switched to Boost license
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. 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. -- Dmitry Olshansky
Re: dmd front end now switched to Boost license
Nick Sabalausky, el 14 de June a las 02:06 me escribiste: It's probably nice to have less restrictive license, but what we aim to achieve with that? Make commercial companies contribute to DMD more freely? There is no problem even with GPL. Let them build and sell their own products out of DMDFE? Highly unlikely to be a profitable anyway, and we'd better get back the patches. Wild guess: DMD in fedora, debian et al. repositories ? I doubt it. First, it's the backend that's not technically OSI, frontend was (apparently) GPL. Second, I can't imagine any Linux distro rejecting GPL - they'd have to boot the kernel and core utils, too. Boost has kinda become the favored D license anyway, Phobos etc., so it probably has a lot to do with that. Kinda weird to have the compiler and stdlib under different licenses. Not really, the standard library is included into user code (because of the templates), and that's the reason why it needs to be under a very permissive license. The compiler, on the other hand, doesn't, and one could agree is good to force people wanting to build products using the compiler FE to contribute changes back. I guess the main purpose of this is encourage proprietary tools based on the FE, but if that's the case, there are better licenses for this, like the LGPL, which let proprietary tools to link code against the DMD FE without having to release their code under a free license. With Boost, anyone can create a tool with DMD FE, improve the DMD FE in the process and distribute the modified DMD FE without offering the source code of the DMD FE to the received, which kind of sucks. In practice I guess not many people would do that, but I think it would have been a nice gesture to ask contributors how they feel about this license change, even when I think technically you are somehow giving up your rights to Digital Mars when contributing to DMDFE and thus they can do whatever they want with the code, legally speaking. -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ -- Every 5 minutes an area of rainforest the size of a foot ball field Is eliminated
Re: dmd front end now switched to Boost license
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 copypasted 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) http://llucax.com.ar/ -- PITUFO ENRIQUE ATEMORIZA CATAMARCA, AMPLIAREMOS -- Crónica TV
Re: dmd front end now switched to Boost license
On Saturday, 14 June 2014 at 17:07:58 UTC, Leandro Lucarella wrote: 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. I believe it is good thing. Standard tool chain should be as permissive as possible, with no expectations from the potential users whatsoever. If someone goes with proprietary closed solution and succeeds - it is their choice and risk to do so.
Re: dmd front end now switched to Boost license
On 6/14/2014 3:58 AM, Joakim wrote: On Saturday, 14 June 2014 at 06:07:08 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote: I doubt it. First, it's the backend that's not technically OSI, frontend was (apparently) GPL. Second, I can't imagine any Linux distro rejecting GPL - they'd have to boot the kernel and core utils, too. Actually, the frontend was dual-licensed under the Artistic license and the GPL and dmd binaries were provided under the former, as the GPL doesn't allow linking against a non-GPL backend. The GPL alternative was likely for gdc to link the frontend against the GPL'd gcc backend. Well, GPL and Artistic are both OSI anyway.
Re: dmd front end now switched to Boost license
On 6/14/2014 10:18 AM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote: 14-Jun-2014 04:46, Walter Bright пишет: 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. Uhh, *no*. Scenario A: -- Them: What license does D use? Us: Well, it depends if you're talking about the compiler or Phobos, the standard library. Phobos is licensed under Boost, whereas the compiler is dual-licensed under both Artistic and one of the many GPLs. (Although the compiler's backend is a source-publicly-available proprietary due to insurmountable historical IP reasons. But GDC/LDC are fully OSS.) Them: Uhh...what? And WHY? And WTF? Us: You see, blah blah blah inclusion into user code blah blah Phobos templates blah blah blah GPL alternative blah blah GDC blah blah... Them: Jeesus, nevermind... -- Scenario B: -- Them: What license does D use? Us: Boost. (Although the compiler's backend is a source-publicly-available proprietary due to insurmountable historical IP reasons. But GDC/LDC are fully OSS.) Them: Huh. Weird, but whatever. -- I'll take B, thanks. ;)
Re: dmd front end now switched to Boost license
On Saturday, 14 June 2014 at 17:17:34 UTC, Dicebot wrote: On Saturday, 14 June 2014 at 17:07:58 UTC, Leandro Lucarella wrote: 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. I believe it is good thing. Standard tool chain should be as permissive as possible, with no expectations from the potential users whatsoever. If someone goes with proprietary closed solution and succeeds - it is their choice and risk to do so. And if they do so, it's beneficial to D overall.
Re: dmd front end now switched to Boost license
On 6/14/2014 11:03 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote: I'll take B, thanks. ;) Right on, Nick. And there's another advantage I neglected to mention - it allows DMDFE code to be moved into Phobos without issues.
Re: dmd front end now switched to Boost license
On Saturday, 14 June 2014 at 18:43:59 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: And there's another advantage I neglected to mention - it allows DMDFE code to be moved into Phobos without issues. I don't think Nick's argument is particularly compelling, but the DDMD - Phobos connection definitely makes the change very worthwhile in my opinion. David
Re: dmd front end now switched to Boost license
On 14 June 2014 19:03, Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d-announce digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote: On 6/14/2014 10:18 AM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote: 14-Jun-2014 04:46, Walter Bright пишет: 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. Uhh, *no*. Scenario A: -- Them: What license does D use? Us: Well, it depends if you're talking about the compiler or Phobos, the standard library. Phobos is licensed under Boost, whereas the compiler is dual-licensed under both Artistic and one of the many GPLs. (Although the compiler's backend is a source-publicly-available proprietary due to insurmountable historical IP reasons. But GDC/LDC are fully OSS.) Them: Uhh...what? And WHY? And WTF? Us: You see, blah blah blah inclusion into user code blah blah Phobos templates blah blah blah GPL alternative blah blah GDC blah blah... Them: Jeesus, nevermind... -- Scenario B: -- Them: What license does D use? Us: Boost. (Although the compiler's backend is a source-publicly-available proprietary due to insurmountable historical IP reasons. But GDC/LDC are fully OSS.) Them: Huh. Weird, but whatever. -- I'll take B, thanks. ;) You should really practise explaining things in a more succinct manner. ;-) When I look at a project, my first question is never What license does it use? - that should be of little importance to anyone using D. If you wish to contribute, your question should be smarter, reword the question to Does this project allow me freely study, modify and re-distribute it's code, and does it guarantee that any contributions I make are released under the same freedom as I get when I received the software?
Re: dmd front end now switched to Boost license
14-Jun-2014 22:03, Nick Sabalausky пишет: On 6/14/2014 10:18 AM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote: 14-Jun-2014 04:46, Walter Bright пишет: 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. Uhh, *no*. Scenario A: -- Them: What license does D use? Me: WAT? Language is not a product in itself. What license C++ use then? In short, everything they care about was and is Boost. -- Dmitry Olshansky
Re: dmd front end now switched to Boost license
On 6/14/2014 9:02 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote: Not really, the standard library is included into user code (because of the templates), and that's the reason why it needs to be under a very permissive license. The compiler, on the other hand, doesn't, and one could agree is good to force people wanting to build products using the compiler FE to contribute changes back. I guess the main purpose of this is encourage proprietary tools based on the FE, but if that's the case, there are better licenses for this, like the LGPL, which let proprietary tools to link code against the DMD FE without having to release their code under a free license. Yes, it allows people to use DMDFE for whatever they want, including closed source proprietary tools. I understand very well how upsetting someone taking your code, creating a CSPT and making money off of it without acknowledging you or contributing back to it. This happened to me with my game Empire. It's a long and convoluted story, and I won't bore you with it, just suffice to say I am not a stranger to how you feel about it. But D is different from a game in that it has network effects - the more adoption it gets, the more momentum for adoption it accrues. By giving up a slice of the pie the pie more than grows enough to compensate. In other words, the D community still gains even if there are a few CSPTs made from the front end.
Re: dmd front end now switched to Boost license
On 6/14/2014 2:47 PM, David Nadlinger wrote: On Saturday, 14 June 2014 at 18:43:59 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: And there's another advantage I neglected to mention - it allows DMDFE code to be moved into Phobos without issues. I don't think Nick's argument is particularly compelling, Granted, it isn't a very big technical/legal argument, but I don't think those are the only important criteria. The thing is, D's licensing overall (DMDFE/DMDBE/LDC/GDC/Phobos) is kinda complicated. So any simplification, as long as it doesn't restrict anyone, is a net improvement, even if it isn't earth-shattering. but the DDMD - Phobos connection definitely makes the change very worthwhile in my opinion. Yea, I agree too, I hadn't thought of that one either.
Re: dmd front end now switched to Boost license
On Saturday, 14 June 2014 at 17:07:58 UTC, Leandro Lucarella wrote: 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. The frontend was dual-licensed under the Artistic license, which also allows such proprietary use, so nothing has really changed. Rather than having two licenses, the Artistic license to allow linking against the proprietary dmd backend and the GPL to allow linking against the gcc backend, the dmd frontend now has a single Boost license that allows both, since the Boost license is considered GPL-compatible. From the standpoint of what the frontend's license allows, not much has changed, but the simplicity and clarity of the Boost license puts the frontend on firmer footing. I realize you prefer the LGPL, to force others to contribute back to the frontend if they modify and distribute it, but the Boost license is much simpler and as Walter points out, proprietary use can help D's adoption.
Re: dmd front end now switched to Boost license
On 6/14/2014 2:52 PM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote: 14-Jun-2014 22:03, Nick Sabalausky пишет: Scenario A: -- Them: What license does D use? Me: WAT? Language is not a product in itself. While that's technically true, people often think of them as complete products anyway. Esp with so many of the newer languages now having a main/official compiler/lib. What license C++ use then? In short, everything they care about was and is Boost.
Re: dmd front end now switched to Boost license
Kapps, el 14 de June a las 18:19 me escribiste: On Saturday, 14 June 2014 at 17:17:34 UTC, Dicebot wrote: On Saturday, 14 June 2014 at 17:07:58 UTC, Leandro Lucarella wrote: 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. I believe it is good thing. Standard tool chain should be as permissive as possible, with no expectations from the potential users whatsoever. If someone goes with proprietary closed solution and succeeds - it is their choice and risk to do so. And if they do so, it's beneficial to D overall. Not if they don't contribute back the changes (at least compared to using a license that allows them to build proprietary tools by linking to DMDFE but forcing them to contribute back the changes to DMDFE itself). I find hard to believe companies willing to do a full closed source proprietary tool are willing to use DMDFE with Boost license but not with LGPL. In any case, I clarify once more that probably in practice this makes a very tiny difference because usually you have to be too stupid to maintain a fork instead of contributing changes back and let upstream take care of all the updates, so I think that will hardly happens, this is more a ethical issue than a practical issue. I just wanted to point out that there might be more ethical licenses to achieve the same effect (allowing companies to build proprietary tools on top on DMDFE). -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ -- ¿Cómo estais? ¿Cómo os senteis hoy 29 del membre de 1961 día en que conmemoreramos la nonésima setima nebulización del martir Peperino Pómoro junto al Rolo Puente en la ciudad de Jadad? -- Peperino Pómoro
Re: dmd front end now switched to Boost license
David Nadlinger, el 14 de June a las 18:47 me escribiste: On Saturday, 14 June 2014 at 18:43:59 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: And there's another advantage I neglected to mention - it allows DMDFE code to be moved into Phobos without issues. I don't think Nick's argument is particularly compelling, but the DDMD - Phobos connection definitely makes the change very worthwhile in my opinion. Agreed, so far this looks like the most important gain from the change, and I can see some sense on using the boost license instead of something like lgpl. -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ -- Ambition makes you look pretty ugly
Re: dmd front end now switched to Boost license
Joakim, el 14 de June a las 19:31 me escribiste: On Saturday, 14 June 2014 at 17:07:58 UTC, Leandro Lucarella wrote: 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. The frontend was dual-licensed under the Artistic license, which also allows such proprietary use, so nothing has really changed. Mmm, even when is true that the Artistic license is a bit more permissive than the GPL in some aspects, I think is hardly suitable for doing serious proprietary software (that you intent to sell). From the artistic license that was distributed by DMD: You may not charge a fee for this Package itself. However, you may distribute this Package in aggregate with other (possibly commercial) programs as part of a larger (possibly commercial) software distribution provided that you do not advertise this Package as a product of your own. Is a bit hairy, I don't think any companies would want to do proprietary tools using the artistic license :) https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/blob/083271a415716cf3e35321f91826397d91c0a731/src/artistic.txt I realize you prefer the LGPL, to force others to contribute back to the frontend if they modify and distribute it, but the Boost license is much simpler and as Walter points out, proprietary use can help D's adoption. Again, I think from the practical point of view is the same. If you use boost license and tons of proprietary tools come out CHANGING the DMDFE and not contributing back, then the D community might get a boost because the have better tools but they are missing the contributions, so is hard to tell if the balance would be positive or negative. If they don't change the DMDFE (or contribute back the changes), then using boost or LGPL are the same, because it doesn't matter. -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ -- El techo de mi cuarto lleno de galaxias
Re: dmd front end now switched to Boost license
On Friday, 13 June 2014 at 00:31:32 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/3655 Glad to hear it. Boost is such a simple license.
Re: dmd front end now switched to Boost license
On 13/06/14 02:31, Walter Bright wrote: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/3655 Awesome. Thanks for opening up to a less restrictive license. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: dmd front end now switched to Boost license
On 6/12/14, 8:31 PM, Walter Bright wrote: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/3655 Seems you missed a few: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/search?q=Artistic+Licenseref=cmdform
Re: dmd front end now switched to Boost license
13-Jun-2014 04:31, Walter Bright пишет: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/3655 It's probably nice to have less restrictive license, but what we aim to achieve with that? Make commercial companies contribute to DMD more freely? There is no problem even with GPL. Let them build and sell their own products out of DMDFE? Highly unlikely to be a profitable anyway, and we'd better get back the patches. -- Dmitry Olshansky
Re: dmd front end now switched to Boost license
On Friday, 13 June 2014 at 11:31:10 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote: 13-Jun-2014 04:31, Walter Bright пишет: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/3655 It's probably nice to have less restrictive license, but what we aim to achieve with that? Make commercial companies contribute to DMD more freely? There is no problem even with GPL. Let them build and sell their own products out of DMDFE? Highly unlikely to be a profitable anyway, and we'd better get back the patches. Wild guess: DMD in fedora, debian et al. repositories ?
Re: dmd front end now switched to Boost license
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? 1. Boost is the least restrictive license 2. Minimize friction for adopting D 3. Harmonization with usage of Boost in the runtime library 4. Allow commercial use of DMDFE (so what if someone does? It'll drive even more adoption of D!) 5. Boost is well known and accepted
dmd front end now switched to Boost license
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/3655
