"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