On Saturday, 26 September 2015 at 20:09:54 UTC, Joakim wrote:
On Saturday, 26 September 2015 at 19:22:16 UTC, Laeeth Isharc
wrote:
On Saturday, 26 September 2015 at 14:31:15 UTC, Artur Skawina
wrote:
Given the DMD licensing situation, nobody will (or should)
even look inside the DMD repo for info. Especially that
"backend" string is really scary. I decided to blindly trust
your words above, and, with trembling hands, somehow managed
to click that link. Phew. That file really appears to be
boost licensed.
...>
Open source code hidden somewhere deep inside a non-free
compiler implementation might just as well not exist, as
noone interested will be willing to look for it there.
out of curiosity, what is your concern? as I understand it
you can produce derived works but the restriction is on
redistribution of the compiler, and if you care about that you
ask Walter and he says yes.
Those who have had to deal with copyright lawyers become
paranoid: ;)
http://forum.dlang.org/post/mailman.2659.1403347797.2907.digitalmar...@puremagic.com
http://forum.dlang.org/post/dmfr07$2u3u$1...@digitaldaemon.com
http://forum.dlang.org/post/euuvum$171f$1...@digitalmars.com
well, okay, but the posts from Walter you link to are from more
then eight years ago, and he spoke about how he was beginning to
open source parts of Phobos (when D's status was rather
different).
anything is possible. but so long as Walter is with us and in
control of Digital Mars, I really don't see that it is possible
for Digital Mars to sue someone who has looked at the code, been
inspired by it, and done something short of straight ripping it
off wholesale. because there's much more at stake with D, and it
wouldn't make any sense. it's not a company with the resources
let alone interest to play games with trivial lawsuits, is my
guess.
the contract nitty gritty only practically comes into play in the
unpleasant scenario that Walter should not be in control of
Digital Mars at some point in some decades, and I trust he has
made provision for that. (Walter?)
Artur makes a very strong statement that doesn't make any sense
to me (and I have certainly had at least my share of silly games
with contracts):
Given the DMD licensing situation, __nobody__ will (or should)
even look inside the DMD repo for info. Especially that
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.
