View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Abscissa
Joined: 23 Feb 2005 Posts: 40 Location: Cleveland, OH, US
|
Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 2:25 pm Post subject: License, Backend and dmd.lib |
|
|
Few Q's:
1. Am I correct in my understanding that the whole point of dmd.lib is to get around any issues with DMD's backend license?
2. Is there anything in DDMD's source (like the "dmd.backend" or "dmd.codegen" packages?) that is covered by DMD's backend license?
3. Does the rest of DDMD inherit DMD's front-end license, or is it under something different? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
korDen
Joined: 12 Mar 2008 Posts: 11
|
Posted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 2:38 am Post subject: Re: License, Backend and dmd.lib |
|
|
Abscissa wrote: | Few Q's:
1. Am I correct in my understanding that the whole point of dmd.lib is to get around any issues with DMD's backend license? | Yes.
Quote: | 2. Is there anything in DDMD's source (like the "dmd.backend" or "dmd.codegen" packages?) that is covered by DMD's backend license? | I hope no. I asked Walter and he told that interfacing to backend is okay.
Quote: | 3. Does the rest of DDMD inherit DMD's front-end license, or is it under something different? | I'm not sure about license. Feel free to suggest any! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Abscissa
Joined: 23 Feb 2005 Posts: 40 Location: Cleveland, OH, US
|
Posted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 3:43 am Post subject: Re: License, Backend and dmd.lib |
|
|
Thanks.
korDen wrote: | I'm not sure about license. Feel free to suggest any! |
I'm normally partial to the zlib/libpng license due to it's permissiveness, shortness, and being extremely easy to read (and no all-caps paragraphs!), and I like that it explicitly prohibits misrepresentation of the origin/creator (but doesn't require attribution).
However, for DDMD, I think the best best would be either Artistic or Boost:
The original DMDFE is under Artistic, so if DDMD is to ever become official that may help. I don't know much about the Artistic license though (I do find it to be terribly long). For all I know it might not even be possible to re-license Artistic-derived stuff under a different license. I really have no idea.
Phobos is Boost, so that *should* be good too. It's highly permissive like zlib/libpng, and fairly short, so that's nice also. And maybe (and I'm only speculating here) maybe a lot of DDMD could eventually end up included as a library in phobos.
In any case, I think it would be best to talk to Walter and see what he has to say about it. Not just because DDMD is based on DMDFE, but also because DDMD has the potential to become much more "official" than it is at the moment. (Plus, I find the fact that DMDFE and Phobos have different licenses to be a bit puzzling.) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|