• Bruno A. Costa (11/11) May 04 2004 Hi all,
• Craig_Welch2 yahoo.com (23/34) May 04 2004 I think Bruno was prompted in part to post this by some of my comments o...

"Bruno A. Costa" <bruno codata.com.br> writes:

Hi all,

Don't you think that is time to fix the licence problem of D and Phobos? D
is a fantastic language and is growing fast to be stable. There are many
programmers interested in develop with D but some of them are afraid of the
licence.

There are much code without licence or with restrictive licences. What about
to decide the problem now? Maybe D is losing much development effort
because of this. A friendly licence would atract many good programmers and
will contribute for a greater acceptance of the language.

Thanks,

Bruno.

Craig_Welch2 yahoo.com writes:

I think Bruno was prompted in part to post this by some of my comments on the
D.gnu list, so I thought I would bring over some of the detail I was referring
to there to here:

BEGIN - from D.gnu

What I was concerned about were the areas under
dmd/src/phobos/internal and dmd/src/phobos/std - there is a mix of things which
are copyright digital mars all rights reserved, some things copyrighted by
others and clearly licensed, and some with no notices whatsoever.  Under the
dmd/src/dmd area things are clearly marked - but dmd/src/phobos is not within
that folder and does not have clear indications regarding license in the way
that the dmd/src/dmd area does.  The license at the higher dmd level is clearly
restrictive.  I certainly respect Walter and other's right to distribute their
work as they see fit - but I cannot see being able to make use of D at present
without those areas of the tree, and technically I do not believe it is open
sourced at this point, which is one of the requirements that I have.  What I am
looking for is clarification on that, I would like to get into the language and
make use of it, but do not see that as worthwhile unless the phobos lib is
clearly open.  It may be that I'm being too picky - forgive me if so - but it
also may be that this is the intent (to restrictively license portions of
phobos) and I wish to be clear on that before investing time and effort into
working with the language.

END - from D.gnu

In article <c78iu1$mka$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Bruno A. Costa says...
Hi all,

Don't you think that is time to fix the licence problem of D and Phobos? D
is a fantastic language and is growing fast to be stable. There are many
programmers interested in develop with D but some of them are afraid of the
licence.

There are much code without licence or with restrictive licences. What about
to decide the problem now? Maybe D is losing much development effort
because of this. A friendly licence would atract many good programmers and
will contribute for a greater acceptance of the language.

Thanks,

Bruno.