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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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,
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,
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
29 matches
Mail list logo
