Re:dmd Backend converted to Boost License

2017-04-08 Thread jollie via Digitalmars-d-announce
Walter Bright Wrote in message: > https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680 > > Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to relicense it. > Thank you, Symantec! > Another long term goal met. Congratulations! Will this change in licensing pave the

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

2017-04-08 Thread Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce
On 4/8/2017 4:24 PM, Jethro wrote: Does this mean that we can now embed the D compiler in to a commercial D app to be used as a scripting like engine(D app compiles D code then dynamically links in code while running)? Yes.

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

2017-04-08 Thread Jethro via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 15:14:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680 Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to relicense it. Thank you, Symantec! Does this mean that we can now embed the D compiler in to a commercial D app to be used as a

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

2017-04-08 Thread Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce
On 4/8/2017 12:07 PM, Martin Tschierschke wrote: May be we can talk about pr strategy for D in general at Dconf. I expect that how to best take advantage of this development will be a hot topic at DConf.

Re: D support for the Meson build system

2017-04-08 Thread Martin Nowak via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 07:57:02 UTC, kinke wrote: So while compiling each file separately in parallel is potentially much much faster, the produced release binary may be slower due to less/no cross-module inlining (e.g., LDC's option is still experimental and known to have issues). In

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

2017-04-08 Thread Martin Tschierschke via Digitalmars-d-announce
On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 15:14:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680 Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to relicense it. Thank you, Symantec! Good news! Thank you! I gave a hint of this - additionally mentioning Dconf - to heise.de,

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

2017-04-08 Thread Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce
On 4/8/2017 10:16 AM, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: To make sure you have your history correct. GDC wrote the work-alike x86 assembler, and later dual-licensed it to share with LDC. A little while later I dropped it from GDC as it was not really fit for purpose, and rather

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

2017-04-08 Thread Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d-announce
On 8 April 2017 at 18:48, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: > On 4/8/2017 1:36 AM, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: >> >> On 7 April 2017 at 23:49, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce >>

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

2017-04-08 Thread Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce
On 4/8/2017 1:33 AM, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) wrote: AFAIK, Symantec were under no particular obligation here, but none-the-less chose the consumer/developer-friendly route, and I for one couldn't be more appreciative. I'm one who can be very critical of, well, everything, but the fine folks

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

2017-04-08 Thread Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce
On 4/8/2017 1:36 AM, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: On 7 April 2017 at 23:49, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: Note that this also resolves the long-standing legal issue with D's inline assembler being backend licensed, and so

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

2017-04-08 Thread Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce
On 4/8/2017 1:19 AM, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) wrote: Anyone "in the know" have a any "inside scoop" regarding the such organization's perspective on the "zlib/libpng" license? I tend to favor it for my own OSS projects, since it's (in my perspective) at least as liberal as Boost, but very,

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

2017-04-08 Thread Jacob Carlborg via Digitalmars-d-announce
On 2017-04-07 17:14, Walter Bright wrote: https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680 Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to relicense it. Thank you, Symantec! This is some amazing news!! :) -- /Jacob Carlborg

Release Candidate 2.074.0-rc1

2017-04-08 Thread Martin Nowak via Digitalmars-d-announce
First release candidate for 2.074.0. http://dlang.org/download.html#dmd_beta http://dlang.org/changelog/2.074.0.html Please report any bugs at https://issues.dlang.org -Martin

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

2017-04-08 Thread Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d-announce
On 7 April 2017 at 23:49, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: > Note that this also resolves the long-standing legal issue with D's inline > assembler being backend licensed, and so not portable to gdc/ldc. > That makes the assumption that

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

2017-04-08 Thread Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) via Digitalmars-d-announce
On 04/07/2017 11:14 AM, Walter Bright wrote: https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680 Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to relicense it. Thank you, Symantec! Wow! This is HUGE news for D, and may I say, I think some *major* respect (and "props, j00!") are

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

2017-04-08 Thread Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) via Digitalmars-d-announce
On 04/07/2017 05:44 PM, Walter Bright wrote: 2. It's on all of the "Accepted OSS Licenses" lists that major corps have because of Boost itself being used in those companies. If your license isn't on the list, your project isn't being used. Yup. We figured every corporation that uses C++ has