"Nick Sabalausky" <a...@a.a> wrote in message news:ia0v9p$11...@digitalmars.com... > "Denis Koroskin" <2kor...@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:op.vk2na9bpo7c...@korden-pc... >> On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 06:55:22 +0400, Nick Sabalausky <a...@a.a> wrote: >> >>> "bearophile" <bearophileh...@lycos.com> wrote in message >>> news:ia0410$1lj...@digitalmars.com... >>>> Nick Sabalausky: >>>> >>>>> But that's all if you want generalized lexing or parsing though. If >>>>> you >>>>> just >>>>> want "lexing D code"/"parsing D code", then IMO anything other than >>>>> adapting >>>>> parts of DDMD would be the wrong way to go. >>>> >>>> Is the DDMD licence compatible with the Phobos one? Is the DDMD >>>> author(s) >>>> willing? >>>> >>> >>> I'd certainly hope so. If it isn't, then that would probably mean DMD's >>> FE >>> license is incompatible with Phobos. Which would be rather...weird. >>> >>> In any case, I asked that and a couple other Q's here, but haven't >>> gotten an >>> answer yet: >>> http://www.dsource.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5627 >>> >>> >> >> Sorry, I wasn't checking the forum. IIRC DMD license is GPL so DDMD must >> be GPL too but I'm all for relicensing it as Boost. > > According to a random file I picked out of trunk, it's dual-licensed with > GPL (not sure which version) and Artistic (also not sure which version) > > http://www.dsource.org/projects/dmd/browser/trunk/src/access.c >
That does surprise me though, since I'm pretty sure Phobos is Boost License. Anyone know why the difference?
