digitalmars.D - Any license issues with DMD programs compiled for Mac OS X?
- Tony (10/10) Feb 20 2006 I noticed that the Gnu D Compiler is (predictably) covered under the GPL...
- =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= (10/18) Feb 20 2006 It uses large parts of gcc and g++, so this is something of a necessity.
- Tony (6/25) Feb 21 2006 Thanks for the information.
- =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= (7/10) Feb 21 2006 Actually I meant that as a *good* thing :-) (glibc being LGPL, not GPL)
- AgentOrange (2/12) Feb 21 2006 Absolutely not, that would kill any real future for D
- Walter Bright (5/13) Feb 20 2006 There are no GPLed library functions in the D runtime library Phobos, an...
I noticed that the Gnu D Compiler is (predictably) covered under the GPL. While I realise that the license of the compiler itself shouldn't affect the license of the code it produces, are there any other issues which might force your compiled D code to be covered under the GPL? Or under any license other than what the author chooses? For example, might it add some GPLed library functions to the runtime (thus make your code a derived work and forcing the adoption of a GPL license?) Tony Melbourne, Australia tonysZ-mailboxZ hotmailZ.com (remove the Zs)
Feb 20 2006
Tony wrote:I noticed that the Gnu D Compiler is (predictably) covered under the GPL.It uses large parts of gcc and g++, so this is something of a necessity. DMD (the frontend) is under a "Dual" license of both GPL and Artistic, while GDC (the adapation of the frontend to GCC) is under the GPL only.While I realise that the license of the compiler itself shouldn't affect the license of the code it produces, are there any other issues which might force your compiled D code to be covered under the GPL? Or under any license other than what the author chooses? For example, might it add some GPLed library functions to the runtime (thus make your code a derived work and forcing the adoption of a GPL license?)The Phobos library is zlib/png license*, and the C runtime under LGPL, so there should be no such GPL issues... Then again, I am not a lawyer. But it shouldn't be different from using say C or C++, on Mac OS X ? --anders * for the most part, see http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?PhobosLicenseIssues
Feb 20 2006
"Anders F Björklund" <afb algonet.se> wrote in message news:dteg3q$smm$1 digitaldaemon.com...Tony wrote:Thanks for the information. If the C runtime is under LGPL, does this mean that compiled code is a derivative work of the C runtime and thus also has to be placed under LGPL or GPL? Or am I totally misunderstanding the situation ?I noticed that the Gnu D Compiler is (predictably) covered under the GPL.It uses large parts of gcc and g++, so this is something of a necessity. DMD (the frontend) is under a "Dual" license of both GPL and Artistic, while GDC (the adapation of the frontend to GCC) is under the GPL only.While I realise that the license of the compiler itself shouldn't affect the license of the code it produces, are there any other issues which might force your compiled D code to be covered under the GPL? Or under any license other than what the author chooses? For example, might it add some GPLed library functions to the runtime (thus make your code a derived work and forcing the adoption of a GPL license?)The Phobos library is zlib/png license*, and the C runtime under LGPL, so there should be no such GPL issues... Then again, I am not a lawyer.But it shouldn't be different from using say C or C++, on Mac OS X ? --anders * for the most part, see http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?PhobosLicenseIssues
Feb 21 2006
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> Tony wrote:If the C runtime is under LGPL, does this mean that compiled code is a derivative work of the C runtime and thus also has to be placed under LGPL or GPL? Or am I totally misunderstanding the situation ?Actually I meant that as a *good* thing :-) (glibc being LGPL, not GPL) Anyway, on Mac OS X it should use Apple's system libraries and C library so there should be no GPL components in the resulting program binary... At least that is how the gdcmac builds are intended, targetting Apple's. (it's also possible to build a fully GNU version of GCC/G++/GDC, but...) --anders
Feb 21 2006
In article <dte9v0$lh2$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Tony says...I noticed that the Gnu D Compiler is (predictably) covered under the GPL. While I realise that the license of the compiler itself shouldn't affect the license of the code it produces, are there any other issues which might force your compiled D code to be covered under the GPL? Or under any license other than what the author chooses? For example, might it add some GPLed library functions to the runtime (thus make your code a derived work and forcing the adoption of a GPL license?) Tony Melbourne, Australia tonysZ-mailboxZ hotmailZ.com (remove the Zs)Absolutely not, that would kill any real future for D
Feb 21 2006
"Tony" <ignorethis nowhere.com> wrote in message news:dte9v0$lh2$1 digitaldaemon.com...I noticed that the Gnu D Compiler is (predictably) covered under the GPL. While I realise that the license of the compiler itself shouldn't affect the license of the code it produces, are there any other issues which might force your compiled D code to be covered under the GPL? Or under any license other than what the author chooses? For example, might it add some GPLed library functions to the runtime (thus make your code a derived work and forcing the adoption of a GPL license?)There are no GPLed library functions in the D runtime library Phobos, and there won't be. Phobos code will be either public domain or copyrighted and free for any use whatsoever.
Feb 20 2006