digitalmars.D - Free the DMD backend
- open-source-guy (27/29) May 28 2016 Hi,
- Joakim (3/10) May 28 2016 It would be nice if that happened, but Walter has said Symantec
- Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d (14/17) May 29 2016 This is why LDC should be seen in the D community as the main
- mogu (2/5) May 29 2016 Agreed. Especially, LDC supports more platform.
- Matthias Klumpp (16/25) May 30 2016 This is something which has been asked on my blog[1], and I do
- Saurabh Das (8/35) May 30 2016 The case for DMD though is compile speed. It really changes the
- Michael (3/11) May 31 2016 Can this be alleviated with something like rdmd for LDC? Does the
- ag0aep6g (5/12) May 31 2016 ldmd2 is alive and well. It's included in the releases. rdmd works fine
- Johan Engelen (7/10) May 31 2016 The difference in time between LDC and DMD is in the machine code
- Atila Neves (7/16) May 31 2016 No, no, no, no. We had LDC be the default already on Arch Linux
- Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d (13/20) May 31 2016 So write a new backend for DMD the licence of which allows DMD to be in
- default0 (11/11) May 31 2016 I have no idea how licensing would work in that regard but
- Alex Parrill (5/10) May 31 2016 The way I understand it is that no matter how different a
- Brad Anderson (4/15) Jun 01 2016 Copyright law's answer to the Ship of Theseus paradox is that
- Eugene Wissner (4/15) May 31 2016 LDC shouldn't be the default compiler to be included in Debian or
- Matthias Klumpp (20/36) Jun 01 2016 Exactly. But since we can legally distribute DMD in e.g. Debian,
- Basile B. (11/42) Jun 02 2016 Let's drop DMD and move to LDC (as the new DMD). Again and again
- Eugene Wissner (2/51) Jun 02 2016 I still would prefer if this "something else" would GDC .
- Basile B. (4/57) Jun 02 2016 When I look at how many messages there are on the GDC news group
- Eugene Wissner (2/60) Jun 02 2016 Ok, if you say so :D
- Basile B. (2/64) Jun 02 2016 It's also that LDC is at front end 2.070 and GDC 2.067 ;););)
- Eugene Wissner (4/5) Jun 02 2016 GDC is actively maintained and it would have the latest features
- Iain Buclaw (2/7) Jun 03 2016 LDC is also no more open than DMD. Go figure!
- Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d (16/26) Jun 04 2016 Is that true. Debian and Fedora package LDC but they will not package
Hi, this is a short ping about one of D's weaknesses - the restrictive license for the backend. IIRC [1, 2, 3] the status is that because some parts have been written by Walter while he was employed by Symantec, it can't get an open-source license. When I read the backend license [4], I read the following:The Software is copyrighted and comes with a single user license,and may not be redistributed. If you wish to obtain a redistribution license, please contact Digital Mars. This actually means that all the 366 forks on Github would require approval by Digital Mars. So luckily neither Symantec nor Digital Mars seem to bother much about the license, so why can't it be changed in an free & open source license that allows free redistribution and modification? This would also make it possible to distribute dmd out-of-the-box on the two biggest Linux distributions Debian and Ubuntu [5, 6]. [1] http://tomash.wrug.eu/blog/2009/03/06/free-the-dmd/ [2] http://forum.dlang.org/post/ikwvgrccoyhvvizcjvxd forum.dlang.org [3] https://semitwist.com/articles/article/view/dispelling-common-d-myths [4] https://github.com/dlang/dmd/blob/master/src/backendlicense.txt [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guidelines [6] https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-dfsg
May 28 2016
On Sunday, 29 May 2016 at 03:52:33 UTC, open-source-guy wrote:Hi, this is a short ping about one of D's weaknesses - the restrictive license for the backend. IIRC [1, 2, 3] the status is that because some parts have been written by Walter while he was employed by Symantec, it can't get an open-source license. When I read the backend license [4], I read the following: [...]It would be nice if that happened, but Walter has said Symantec isn't interested. Aren't ldc and GDC enough?
May 28 2016
On Sun, 2016-05-29 at 04:08 +0000, Joakim via Digitalmars-d wrote:=20[=E2=80=A6]It would be nice if that happened, but Walter has said Symantec=C2=A0 isn't interested.=C2=A0=C2=A0Aren't ldc and GDC enough?This is why LDC should be seen in the D community as the main production toolchain, and Dub should default to LDC for compilation. --=20 Russel. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.n= et 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: russel winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
May 29 2016
mogu <mogucpp 163.com> On Sunday, 29 May 2016 at 10:56:57 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:This is why LDC should be seen in the D community as the main production toolchain, and Dub should default to LDC for compilation.Agreed. Especially, LDC supports more platform.
May 29 2016
On Sunday, 29 May 2016 at 10:56:57 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:On Sun, 2016-05-29 at 04:08 +0000, Joakim via Digitalmars-d wrote:This is something which has been asked on my blog[1], and I do agree that having a completely free-as-in-freedom reference compiler would be an awesome win for the D ecosystem, and would pretty much kill most of the issues we have at distros to package D stuff. D is very unique with its half-proprietary compiler. LDC seems to be a pretty good fit for replacing the backend. Shifting to LDC as reference compiler would basically mean to slowly give up DMD though, because other than being tested much, there wouldn't be a compelling reason to still use it when focus has shifted to LDC / GDC. In any case, this is definitely something for Walter and Andrei to decide, and I do have a feeling that this question might have been raised already in the past... [1]: http://blog.tenstral.net/2016/05/adventures-in-d-programming.html#comment-265879[…]It would be nice if that happened, but Walter has said Symantec isn't interested. Aren't ldc and GDC enough?This is why LDC should be seen in the D community as the main production toolchain, and Dub should default to LDC for compilation.
May 30 2016
On Monday, 30 May 2016 at 14:51:48 UTC, Matthias Klumpp wrote:On Sunday, 29 May 2016 at 10:56:57 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:The case for DMD though is compile speed. It really changes the way one writes programs and makes it possible to write bash script-like functionality in D because of a rapid compile-run cycle. LDC and GDC are quite a bit slower than DMD. Is this gap inherent in the structure of these compilers or can there be an LDC mode which compiles as rapidly as DMD?On Sun, 2016-05-29 at 04:08 +0000, Joakim via Digitalmars-d wrote:This is something which has been asked on my blog[1], and I do agree that having a completely free-as-in-freedom reference compiler would be an awesome win for the D ecosystem, and would pretty much kill most of the issues we have at distros to package D stuff. D is very unique with its half-proprietary compiler. LDC seems to be a pretty good fit for replacing the backend. Shifting to LDC as reference compiler would basically mean to slowly give up DMD though, because other than being tested much, there wouldn't be a compelling reason to still use it when focus has shifted to LDC / GDC. In any case, this is definitely something for Walter and Andrei to decide, and I do have a feeling that this question might have been raised already in the past... [1]: http://blog.tenstral.net/2016/05/adventures-in-d-programming.html#comment-265879[…]It would be nice if that happened, but Walter has said Symantec isn't interested. Aren't ldc and GDC enough?This is why LDC should be seen in the D community as the main production toolchain, and Dub should default to LDC for compilation.
May 30 2016
On Monday, 30 May 2016 at 15:06:42 UTC, Saurabh Das wrote:On Monday, 30 May 2016 at 14:51:48 UTC, Matthias Klumpp wrote: The case for DMD though is compile speed. It really changes the way one writes programs and makes it possible to write bash script-like functionality in D because of a rapid compile-run cycle. LDC and GDC are quite a bit slower than DMD. Is this gap inherent in the structure of these compilers or can there be an LDC mode which compiles as rapidly as DMD?Can this be alleviated with something like rdmd for LDC? Does the old ldmd2 project still exist?
May 31 2016
On 05/31/2016 11:32 AM, Michael wrote:On Monday, 30 May 2016 at 15:06:42 UTC, Saurabh Das wrote:[...]On Monday, 30 May 2016 at 14:51:48 UTC, Matthias Klumpp wrote:ldmd2 is alive and well. It's included in the releases. rdmd works fine with it. But rdmd does not speed up compilation.LDC and GDC are quite a bit slower than DMD. Is this gap inherent in the structure of these compilers or can there be an LDC mode which compiles as rapidly as DMD?Can this be alleviated with something like rdmd for LDC? Does the old ldmd2 project still exist?
May 31 2016
On Monday, 30 May 2016 at 15:06:42 UTC, Saurabh Das wrote:LDC and GDC are quite a bit slower than DMD. Is this gap inherent in the structure of these compilers or can there be an LDC mode which compiles as rapidly as DMD?The difference in time between LDC and DMD is in the machine code generation that is much slower in LDC (LLVM) than in DMD, even in debug mode. We are looking into improving codegen speed, but it is not something straightforward. -Johan
May 31 2016
On Sunday, 29 May 2016 at 10:56:57 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:On Sun, 2016-05-29 at 04:08 +0000, Joakim via Digitalmars-d wrote:No, no, no, no. We had LDC be the default already on Arch Linux for a while and it was a royal pain. I want to choose to use LDC when and if I need performance. Otherwise, I want my projects to compile as fast possible and be able to use all the shiny new features. Atila[…]It would be nice if that happened, but Walter has said Symantec isn't interested. Aren't ldc and GDC enough?This is why LDC should be seen in the D community as the main production toolchain, and Dub should default to LDC for compilation.
May 31 2016
On Tue, 2016-05-31 at 10:09 +0000, Atila Neves via Digitalmars-d wrote:=C2=A0[=E2=80=A6] =20 No, no, no, no. We had LDC be the default already on Arch Linux=C2=A0 for a while and it was a royal pain. I want to choose to use LDC=C2=A0 when and if I need performance. Otherwise, I want my projects to=C2=A0 compile as fast possible and be able to use all the shiny new=C2=A0 features.So write a new backend for DMD the licence of which allows DMD to be in Debian and Fedora. --=20 Russel. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.n= et 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: russel winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
May 31 2016
I have no idea how licensing would work in that regard but considering that DMDs backend is actively maintained and may eventually even be ported to D, wouldn't it at some point differ enough from Symantecs "original" backend to simply call the DMD backend its own thing? Or are all the changes to the DMD backend simply changes to Symantecs backend period? Then again even if that'd legally be fine after some point, someone would have to make the judgement call and that seems like a potentially large legal risk, so I guess even if it'd work that way it would be an unrealistic step.
May 31 2016
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 at 20:18:34 UTC, default0 wrote:I have no idea how licensing would work in that regard but considering that DMDs backend is actively maintained and may eventually even be ported to D, wouldn't it at some point differ enough from Symantecs "original" backend to simply call the DMD backend its own thing?The way I understand it is that no matter how different a derivative work (such as any modification to DMD) gets, it's still a derivative work, and is subject to the terms of the license of the original work.
May 31 2016
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 at 20:18:34 UTC, default0 wrote:I have no idea how licensing would work in that regard but considering that DMDs backend is actively maintained and may eventually even be ported to D, wouldn't it at some point differ enough from Symantecs "original" backend to simply call the DMD backend its own thing? Or are all the changes to the DMD backend simply changes to Symantecs backend period? Then again even if that'd legally be fine after some point, someone would have to make the judgement call and that seems like a potentially large legal risk, so I guess even if it'd work that way it would be an unrealistic step.Copyright law's answer to the Ship of Theseus paradox is that it's the same ship (i.e. derivative works are still covered under the original copyright).
Jun 01 2016
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 at 20:12:33 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:On Tue, 2016-05-31 at 10:09 +0000, Atila Neves via Digitalmars-d wrote:LDC shouldn't be the default compiler to be included in Debian or Fedora. Reference compiler and the default D compiler in a particular distribution are two independent things.[…] No, no, no, no. We had LDC be the default already on Arch Linux for a while and it was a royal pain. I want to choose to use LDC when and if I need performance. Otherwise, I want my projects to compile as fast possible and be able to use all the shiny new features.So write a new backend for DMD the licence of which allows DMD to be in Debian and Fedora.
May 31 2016
On Wednesday, 1 June 2016 at 01:26:53 UTC, Eugene Wissner wrote:On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 at 20:12:33 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:Exactly. But since we can legally distribute DMD in e.g. Debian, and DMD is the reference compiler, we will build software in Debian with a compiler that upstream might not have tested. Additionally, new people usually try out a language with the default compiler found in their Linux distribution, and there is a chance that the reference compiler and default free compiler differ, which is just additional pain and plain weird in the Linux world. E.g. think of Python. Everyone uses and tests with CPython, although there are other interpreters available. If CPython would be non-free, distros would need to compile with a free compiler, e.g. PyPy, which is potentially not feature complete, leading to a split in the Python ecosystem between what the reference compiler (CPython) does, and what people actually use in Linux distributions (PyPy). Those compilers might use different language versions, or have a different standard library or runtime, making the issue worse. Fortunately, CPython is completely free, so we don't really have that issue ;-)On Tue, 2016-05-31 at 10:09 +0000, Atila Neves via Digitalmars-d wrote:LDC shouldn't be the default compiler to be included in Debian or Fedora. Reference compiler and the default D compiler in a particular distribution are two independent things.[…] No, no, no, no. We had LDC be the default already on Arch Linux for a while and it was a royal pain. I want to choose to use LDC when and if I need performance. Otherwise, I want my projects to compile as fast possible and be able to use all the shiny new features.So write a new backend for DMD the licence of which allows DMD to be in Debian and Fedora.
Jun 01 2016
On Sunday, 29 May 2016 at 03:52:33 UTC, open-source-guy wrote:Hi, this is a short ping about one of D's weaknesses - the restrictive license for the backend. IIRC [1, 2, 3] the status is that because some parts have been written by Walter while he was employed by Symantec, it can't get an open-source license. When I read the backend license [4], I read the following:Let's drop DMD and move to LDC (as the new DMD). Again and again people find bugs in the old backend. I know that it'll be hard for Bright to throw its little baby in the water but seriously it's not possible anymore. Symantec is not interested to left its licence to Bright but they are probably neither interested to do anything with this bugged backend. Let's drop it. If they wanna keep the rights on this ok. Let them their "so loved but not intersting" backend to them and move to something else for D default compiler.The Software is copyrighted and comes with a single user license,and may not be redistributed. If you wish to obtain a redistribution license, please contact Digital Mars. This actually means that all the 366 forks on Github would require approval by Digital Mars. So luckily neither Symantec nor Digital Mars seem to bother much about the license, so why can't it be changed in an free & open source license that allows free redistribution and modification? This would also make it possible to distribute dmd out-of-the-box on the two biggest Linux distributions Debian and Ubuntu [5, 6]. [1] http://tomash.wrug.eu/blog/2009/03/06/free-the-dmd/ [2] http://forum.dlang.org/post/ikwvgrccoyhvvizcjvxd forum.dlang.org [3] https://semitwist.com/articles/article/view/dispelling-common-d-myths [4] https://github.com/dlang/dmd/blob/master/src/backendlicense.txt [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guidelines [6] https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-dfsg
Jun 02 2016
On Thursday, 2 June 2016 at 17:04:25 UTC, Basile B. wrote:On Sunday, 29 May 2016 at 03:52:33 UTC, open-source-guy wrote:I still would prefer if this "something else" would GDC .Hi, this is a short ping about one of D's weaknesses - the restrictive license for the backend. IIRC [1, 2, 3] the status is that because some parts have been written by Walter while he was employed by Symantec, it can't get an open-source license. When I read the backend license [4], I read the following:Let's drop DMD and move to LDC (as the new DMD). Again and again people find bugs in the old backend. I know that it'll be hard for Bright to throw its little baby in the water but seriously it's not possible anymore. Symantec is not interested to left its licence to Bright but they are probably neither interested to do anything with this bugged backend. Let's drop it. If they wanna keep the rights on this ok. Let them their "so loved but not intersting" backend to them and move to something else for D default compiler.The Software is copyrighted and comes with a single user license,and may not be redistributed. If you wish to obtain a redistribution license, please contact Digital Mars. This actually means that all the 366 forks on Github would require approval by Digital Mars. So luckily neither Symantec nor Digital Mars seem to bother much about the license, so why can't it be changed in an free & open source license that allows free redistribution and modification? This would also make it possible to distribute dmd out-of-the-box on the two biggest Linux distributions Debian and Ubuntu [5, 6]. [1] http://tomash.wrug.eu/blog/2009/03/06/free-the-dmd/ [2] http://forum.dlang.org/post/ikwvgrccoyhvvizcjvxd forum.dlang.org [3] https://semitwist.com/articles/article/view/dispelling-common-d-myths [4] https://github.com/dlang/dmd/blob/master/src/backendlicense.txt [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guidelines [6] https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-dfsg
Jun 02 2016
On Thursday, 2 June 2016 at 17:32:25 UTC, Eugene Wissner wrote:On Thursday, 2 June 2016 at 17:04:25 UTC, Basile B. wrote:When I look at how many messages there are on the GDC news group compared to LDC's one it's clear that GDC must has been more popular at a time. But this time is done.On Sunday, 29 May 2016 at 03:52:33 UTC, open-source-guy wrote:I still would prefer if this "something else" would GDC .Hi, this is a short ping about one of D's weaknesses - the restrictive license for the backend. IIRC [1, 2, 3] the status is that because some parts have been written by Walter while he was employed by Symantec, it can't get an open-source license. When I read the backend license [4], I read the following:Let's drop DMD and move to LDC (as the new DMD). Again and again people find bugs in the old backend. I know that it'll be hard for Bright to throw its little baby in the water but seriously it's not possible anymore. Symantec is not interested to left its licence to Bright but they are probably neither interested to do anything with this bugged backend. Let's drop it. If they wanna keep the rights on this ok. Let them their "so loved but not intersting" backend to them and move to something else for D default compiler.The Software is copyrighted and comes with a single user license,and may not be redistributed. If you wish to obtain a redistribution license, please contact Digital Mars. This actually means that all the 366 forks on Github would require approval by Digital Mars. So luckily neither Symantec nor Digital Mars seem to bother much about the license, so why can't it be changed in an free & open source license that allows free redistribution and modification? This would also make it possible to distribute dmd out-of-the-box on the two biggest Linux distributions Debian and Ubuntu [5, 6]. [1] http://tomash.wrug.eu/blog/2009/03/06/free-the-dmd/ [2] http://forum.dlang.org/post/ikwvgrccoyhvvizcjvxd forum.dlang.org [3] https://semitwist.com/articles/article/view/dispelling-common-d-myths [4] https://github.com/dlang/dmd/blob/master/src/backendlicense.txt [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guidelines [6] https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-dfsg
Jun 02 2016
On Thursday, 2 June 2016 at 17:54:10 UTC, Basile B. wrote:On Thursday, 2 June 2016 at 17:32:25 UTC, Eugene Wissner wrote:Ok, if you say so :DOn Thursday, 2 June 2016 at 17:04:25 UTC, Basile B. wrote:When I look at how many messages there are on the GDC news group compared to LDC's one it's clear that GDC must has been more popular at a time. But this time is done.On Sunday, 29 May 2016 at 03:52:33 UTC, open-source-guy wrote:I still would prefer if this "something else" would GDC .Hi, this is a short ping about one of D's weaknesses - the restrictive license for the backend. IIRC [1, 2, 3] the status is that because some parts have been written by Walter while he was employed by Symantec, it can't get an open-source license. When I read the backend license [4], I read the following:Let's drop DMD and move to LDC (as the new DMD). Again and again people find bugs in the old backend. I know that it'll be hard for Bright to throw its little baby in the water but seriously it's not possible anymore. Symantec is not interested to left its licence to Bright but they are probably neither interested to do anything with this bugged backend. Let's drop it. If they wanna keep the rights on this ok. Let them their "so loved but not intersting" backend to them and move to something else for D default compiler.The Software is copyrighted and comes with a single user license,and may not be redistributed. If you wish to obtain a redistribution license, please contact Digital Mars. This actually means that all the 366 forks on Github would require approval by Digital Mars. So luckily neither Symantec nor Digital Mars seem to bother much about the license, so why can't it be changed in an free & open source license that allows free redistribution and modification? This would also make it possible to distribute dmd out-of-the-box on the two biggest Linux distributions Debian and Ubuntu [5, 6]. [1] http://tomash.wrug.eu/blog/2009/03/06/free-the-dmd/ [2] http://forum.dlang.org/post/ikwvgrccoyhvvizcjvxd forum.dlang.org [3] https://semitwist.com/articles/article/view/dispelling-common-d-myths [4] https://github.com/dlang/dmd/blob/master/src/backendlicense.txt [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guidelines [6] https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-dfsg
Jun 02 2016
On Thursday, 2 June 2016 at 18:09:15 UTC, Eugene Wissner wrote:On Thursday, 2 June 2016 at 17:54:10 UTC, Basile B. wrote:It's also that LDC is at front end 2.070 and GDC 2.067 ;););)On Thursday, 2 June 2016 at 17:32:25 UTC, Eugene Wissner wrote:Ok, if you say so :DOn Thursday, 2 June 2016 at 17:04:25 UTC, Basile B. wrote:When I look at how many messages there are on the GDC news group compared to LDC's one it's clear that GDC must has been more popular at a time. But this time is done.On Sunday, 29 May 2016 at 03:52:33 UTC, open-source-guy wrote:I still would prefer if this "something else" would GDC .Hi, this is a short ping about one of D's weaknesses - the restrictive license for the backend. IIRC [1, 2, 3] the status is that because some parts have been written by Walter while he was employed by Symantec, it can't get an open-source license. When I read the backend license [4], I read the following:Let's drop DMD and move to LDC (as the new DMD). Again and again people find bugs in the old backend. I know that it'll be hard for Bright to throw its little baby in the water but seriously it's not possible anymore. Symantec is not interested to left its licence to Bright but they are probably neither interested to do anything with this bugged backend. Let's drop it. If they wanna keep the rights on this ok. Let them their "so loved but not intersting" backend to them and move to something else for D default compiler.The Software is copyrighted and comes with a single user license,and may not be redistributed. If you wish to obtain a redistribution license, please contact Digital Mars. This actually means that all the 366 forks on Github would require approval by Digital Mars. So luckily neither Symantec nor Digital Mars seem to bother much about the license, so why can't it be changed in an free & open source license that allows free redistribution and modification? This would also make it possible to distribute dmd out-of-the-box on the two biggest Linux distributions Debian and Ubuntu [5, 6]. [1] http://tomash.wrug.eu/blog/2009/03/06/free-the-dmd/ [2] http://forum.dlang.org/post/ikwvgrccoyhvvizcjvxd forum.dlang.org [3] https://semitwist.com/articles/article/view/dispelling-common-d-myths [4] https://github.com/dlang/dmd/blob/master/src/backendlicense.txt [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guidelines [6] https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-dfsg
Jun 02 2016
On Thursday, 2 June 2016 at 18:16:33 UTC, Basile B. wrote:It's also that LDC is at front end 2.070 and GDC 2.067 ;););)GDC is actively maintained and it would have the latest features if more developers come, what would happen if it would be the reference compiler.
Jun 02 2016
On Friday, 3 June 2016 at 03:17:56 UTC, Eugene Wissner wrote:On Thursday, 2 June 2016 at 18:16:33 UTC, Basile B. wrote:LDC is also no more open than DMD. Go figure!It's also that LDC is at front end 2.070 and GDC 2.067 ;););)GDC is actively maintained and it would have the latest features if more developers come, what would happen if it would be the reference compiler.
Jun 03 2016
On Fri, 2016-06-03 at 07:12 +0000, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote:On Friday, 3 June 2016 at 03:17:56 UTC, Eugene Wissner wrote:Is that true. Debian and Fedora package LDC but they will not package DMD. GDC has to work within the GCC release framework so I think probably not a good context for the D reference compiler.=C2=A0 =C2=A0 --=20 Russel. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.n= et 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: russel winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winderOn Thursday, 2 June 2016 at 18:16:33 UTC, Basile B. wrote:=20 LDC is also no more open than DMD. Go figure!It's also that LDC is at front end 2.070 and GDC 2.067 ;););)=20 =20 GDC is actively maintained and it would have the latest=C2=A0 features if more developers come, what would happen if it would=C2=A0 be the reference compiler.
Jun 04 2016