www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.announce - dmd Backend converted to Boost License

reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680

Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to relicense it. 
Thank you, Symantec!
Apr 07 2017
next sibling parent Joseph Rushton Wakeling <joseph.wakeling webdrake.net> writes:
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!


Congratulations Walter!  This is marvellous news :-)
Apr 07 2017
prev sibling next sibling parent Jack Stouffer <jack jackstouffer.com> writes:
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!


A great step forward for the language!

A huge thank you to everyone who made this happen.
Apr 07 2017
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Joseph Rushton Wakeling <joseph.wakeling webdrake.net> writes:
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!


Question: will this 'fix' be backported to existing stable 
releases?  Or will it just apply going forward?

I ask because it could make a difference to what is legally 
possible to package for e.g. Linux distros, etc.
Apr 07 2017
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 4/7/2017 8:25 AM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:

 Question: will this 'fix' be backported to existing stable releases?  Or will
it
 just apply going forward?

 I ask because it could make a difference to what is legally possible to package
 for e.g. Linux distros, etc.


It applies to all of it!
Apr 07 2017
parent reply Joseph Rushton Wakeling <joseph.wakeling webdrake.net> writes:
On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 15:35:00 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

 It applies to all of it!


Cool :-)

My question should have been more specific: will we see the patch 
changing the license in the source code applied to existing 
stable release branches?

I'd really appreciate it if we could get such a patch applied at 
least to the current stable release.  Obviously the code's real 
license is now officially Boost by your decision, but it's nice 
to have the source clearly match up to this.
Apr 07 2017
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 4/7/2017 2:54 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:

 My question should have been more specific: will we see the patch changing the
 license in the source code applied to existing stable release branches?

 I'd really appreciate it if we could get such a patch applied at least to the
 current stable release.  Obviously the code's real license is now officially
 Boost by your decision, but it's nice to have the source clearly match up to
this.


I'll defer to Martin Nowak on what to do about that.

It would help for those who need this for specific versions to let Martin know 
which ones.
Apr 07 2017
parent Joseph Rushton Wakeling <joseph.wakeling webdrake.net> writes:
On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 22:02:31 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

 I'll defer to Martin Nowak on what to do about that.

 It would help for those who need this for specific versions to 
 let Martin know which ones.


Great, thanks -- I'll follow up with Martin on slack.
Apr 07 2017
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Jack Stouffer <jack jackstouffer.com> writes:
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!


Reddit: 
https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/6419py/the_official_d_compiler_is_now_free_as_in_freedom/
Apr 07 2017
parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 04/07/2017 12:01 PM, Jack Stouffer wrote:

 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!


 Reddit:
 https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/6419py/the_official_d_compiler_is_now_free_as_in_freedom/


Thanks, someone also put it on hackernews - found it by browsing for 
"new" threads. -- Andrei
Apr 07 2017
parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 4/7/2017 9:10 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 On 04/07/2017 12:01 PM, Jack Stouffer wrote:

 Reddit:
 https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/6419py/the_official_d_compiler_is_now_free_as_in_freedom/


 Thanks, someone also put it on hackernews - found it by browsing for "new"
 threads. -- Andrei



It's the number one story on hackernews at the moment:

   https://news.ycombinator.com/news

Usually D does better on reddit than hackernews, but today it is doing way 
better on hackernews. 150 points!
Apr 07 2017
prev sibling next sibling parent ketmar <ketmar ketmar.no-ip.org> writes:
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!


i don't even know what to say... thank you! i didn't even hoped that this 
will happen. what a glorious day today.
Apr 07 2017
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Basile B. <b2.temp gmx.com> writes:
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. Question:

Does this apply from now or can the previous DMD releases also be 
considered as 100% Boost licensed ?
Apr 07 2017
parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 4/7/2017 9:15 AM, Basile B. wrote:

 Does this apply from now or can the previous DMD releases also be considered as
 100% Boost licensed ?


All of it!
Apr 07 2017
prev sibling next sibling parent bachmeier <no spam.net> writes:
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!


Great news! By 2027, we should no longer hear objections to D 
based on the backend license.
Apr 07 2017
prev sibling next sibling parent Jon Degenhardt <jond noreply.com> writes:
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!


Congrats, this is a great result!
Apr 07 2017
prev sibling next sibling parent deadalnix <deadalnix gmail.com> writes:
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!


<3
Apr 07 2017
prev sibling next sibling parent Joakim <dlang joakim.fea.st> writes:
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!


That was nice of Symantec to finally grant your request.  Will 
this mean more work put into the backend?  Regardless, good to 
stop the FUD about the backend licensing.
Apr 07 2017
prev sibling next sibling parent Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d-announce writes:
On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 08:14 -0700, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-
announce wrote:

 https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680
=20
 Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to
 relicense it.=C2=A0
 Thank you, Symantec!


So now the campaign begins to get DMD formally packaged by Debian and
Fedora.

Having DMD packaged as well as LDC and GDC will be a great thing for
marketing of D.

--=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
Apr 07 2017
prev sibling next sibling parent Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d-announce writes:
On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 18:51 +0100, Russel Winder wrote:

 [=E2=80=A6]
 So now the campaign begins to get DMD formally packaged by Debian and
 Fedora.
=20
 Having DMD packaged as well as LDC and GDC will be a great thing for
 marketing of D.


We also need GDC in 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
Apr 07 2017
prev sibling next sibling parent David Oftedal <dlang 01101001.net> writes:
Wow, congratulations, and a big thank you to those who made it 
happen.
Apr 07 2017
prev sibling next sibling parent "H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d-announce" writes:
On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 08:14:40AM -0700, Walter Bright via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:

 https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680
 
 Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to
 relicense it.  Thank you, Symantec!


Hooray!!!!!!  Finally!!!

Never thought I'd see this day, but here it is!

Yes, and now it's time to push for dmd to get into Debian and the rest
of the FOSS ecosystem.


T

-- 
To err is human; to forgive is not our policy. -- Samuel Adler
Apr 07 2017
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Radu <radu void.null> writes:
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!


Glorious day for D and Dlangers.

Congrats Walter for the tenacity and thanks Symantec for coming 
to senses:)

Also, big up for the whole community as there is a big positive 
vibe around the news and nobody is complaining about basic stuff 
missing line website, docs, infrastructure etc.

Cheers!
Apr 07 2017
parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 4/7/2017 12:02 PM, Radu wrote:

 Also, big up for the whole community as there is a big positive vibe around the
 news and nobody is complaining about basic stuff missing line website, docs,
 infrastructure etc.


Yes, it's the most positive response to us I've ever seen on HN, by far.
Apr 07 2017
prev sibling next sibling parent Sameer Pradhan <pradhan cemantix.org> writes:
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!


That is really good news!
One less shackle preventing users from adopting :D (and if I am 
not mistaken, directly contributing to DMD)

I was just discussing it with Steve at our Boston D Meetup last 
week and he explained how it was "techincally" free, but needed 
your explicit blessing for each case—which was guaranteed. 
Strange how things work in this world many times—especially where 
software is involved.

--
Sameer
Apr 07 2017
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-announce writes:
On Friday, April 07, 2017 08:14:40 Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce 
wrote:

 https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680

 Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to relicense
 it. Thank you, Symantec!


Well, this is certainly great news.

Does this make dmd the only compiler that's fully boost-licensed? Usually,
licenses like the GPL or BSD license get used. I don't get the impression
that the boost license is all that common - at least not for actual
programs as opposed to libraries. From what I've seen, the fact that we use
it so heavily in the D community is abnormal, though it's as hassle-free as
you can get with an open source license, which is great.

- Jonathan M Davis
Apr 07 2017
next sibling parent reply Jack Stouffer <jack jackstouffer.com> writes:
On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 19:37:14 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

 From what I've seen, the fact that we use it so heavily in the 
 D community is abnormal


AFAIK the reasons it was chosen were

1. It's as close to public domain as you can get in international 
law
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.
Apr 07 2017
next sibling parent Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-announce writes:
On Friday, April 07, 2017 20:02:52 Jack Stouffer via Digitalmars-d-announce 
wrote:

 On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 19:37:14 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

 From what I've seen, the fact that we use it so heavily in the
 D community is abnormal


 AFAIK the reasons it was chosen were

 1. It's as close to public domain as you can get in international
 law
 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.


Oh, I'm quite familiar with why Walter chose the boost license, and I agree
with that choice (I use it for all of my projects). My point was that it
doesn't seem to be a very common choice outside of the D community (at least
from what I've seen).

- Jonathan M Davis
Apr 07 2017
prev sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 4/7/2017 1:02 PM, Jack Stouffer wrote:

 AFAIK the reasons it was chosen were

 1. It's as close to public domain as you can get in international law


Yes.


 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 accepted Boost, so this 
would be a no-brainer for them to accept D's license.
Apr 07 2017
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa)" <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
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 accepted Boost, so
 this would be a no-brainer for them to accept D's license.


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, very, ultra-easy to read/understand even for 
an everyday layman. But I would love to hear from anyone with more 
in-the-trenches experience how realistic that really plays out in the 
"real world".

I wonder if maybe it would be worth my while to dual-license my OSS 
dlang projects under both Boost and zlib/libpng. Anyone with real-world 
expertise in the area have any ("number five alive!") eeeenput?
Apr 08 2017
parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
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,
 very, ultra-easy to read/understand even for an everyday layman. But I would
 love to hear from anyone with more in-the-trenches experience how realistic
that
 really plays out in the "real world".

 I wonder if maybe it would be worth my while to dual-license my OSS dlang
 projects under both Boost and zlib/libpng. Anyone with real-world expertise in
 the area have any ("number five alive!") eeeenput?


I'm no lawyer and have no idea and you should ask a real lawyer for real legal 
advice. But it stands to reason that the more widely used a license is, the
more 
likely a corporate lawyer is familiar with it and has already approved it for 
use in the corporation. So why not just use Boost and be done with it?
Apr 08 2017
prev sibling parent reply Jesse Phillips <Jesse.K.Phillips+D gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 19:37:14 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

 On Friday, April 07, 2017 08:14:40 Walter Bright via 
 Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:

 https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680

 Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to 
 relicense it. Thank you, Symantec!


 Well, this is certainly great news.

 Does this make dmd the only compiler that's fully 
 boost-licensed? Usually, licenses like the GPL or BSD license 
 get used. I don't get the impression that the boost license is 
 all that common - at least not for actual programs as opposed 
 to libraries. From what I've seen, the fact that we use it so 
 heavily in the D community is abnormal, though it's as 
 hassle-free as you can get with an open source license, which 
 is great.

 - Jonathan M Davis


I was thinking the same thing. Its probably the most permissive 
compiler out there now. MIT almost equal though.
Apr 07 2017
parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 4/7/2017 2:04 PM, Jesse Phillips wrote:

 MIT almost equal though.


I suspect that the reason MIT came up with their own license is so they could 
call it the "MIT License". Branding, ya know.
Apr 07 2017
prev sibling next sibling parent bluecat <1bluecat7 gmail.com> writes:
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!


Very good news and a solid accomplishment for being on top of 
Hacker News (as of writing this). It's very good when dlang is 
discussed on the site along with the other trendy languages. It 
certainly deserves to be within common programming discourse.  
Also, congratulations on this big accomplishment!
Apr 07 2017
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Ulrich =?UTF-8?B?S8O8dHRsZXI=?= <kuettler gmail.com> writes:
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!


This is brilliant! Fantastic!

With all those forks of dmd now well underway, can I please 
reserve the name 'dork'? ;)
Apr 07 2017
parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 4/7/2017 1:28 PM, Ulrich Küttler wrote:

 With all those forks of dmd now well underway, can I please reserve the name
 'dork'? ;)


HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

(Hey, I'm feeling pretty good today!)
Apr 07 2017
prev sibling next sibling parent reply WhatMeWorry <kheaser gmail.com> writes:
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!


I've been coding in D for years now but was unaware of this 
issue. Could someone give this licensing neophyte an explanation 
and some history?

Thanks.
Apr 07 2017
parent reply rikki cattermole <rikki cattermole.co.nz> writes:
On 07/04/2017 10:03 PM, WhatMeWorry wrote:

 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!


 I've been coding in D for years now but was unaware of this issue. Could
 someone give this licensing neophyte an explanation and some history?


So dmd's backend came directly from dmc. This makes sense as this is the 
time of Digital Mars creation (Walter has been working with this code 
base pretty much since before I was born).
Because of how history went, it was owned by Symantic yet Digital Mars 
still developed it.

So its usage within dmd caused problems, i.e. with packaging and 
distributing because it required explicit permission from Digital Mars 
so that Symantic wouldn't get sued.

Maybe Walter can clarify but this is what I have gathered over the years.
Apr 07 2017
parent "H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d-announce" writes:
On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 10:38:36PM +0100, rikki cattermole via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:

 On 07/04/2017 10:03 PM, WhatMeWorry wrote:


[...]

 I've been coding in D for years now but was unaware of this issue.
 Could someone give this licensing neophyte an explanation and some
 history?


 
 So dmd's backend came directly from dmc. This makes sense as this is
 the time of Digital Mars creation (Walter has been working with this
 code base pretty much since before I was born).
 Because of how history went, it was owned by Symantic yet Digital Mars
 still developed it.
 
 So its usage within dmd caused problems, i.e. with packaging and
 distributing because it required explicit permission from Digital Mars
 so that Symantic wouldn't get sued.
 
 Maybe Walter can clarify but this is what I have gathered over the
 years.


There's also the aspect, AIUI, that Walter has refrained from looking at
/ contributing to the code for any other compiler backend, in order to
avoid legal complications arising from possible "tainting" from the dmd
backend code. E.g., if he were to submit a patch to the gcc backend,
Symantec could in theory come back and sue the gcc guys claiming that
their code is based on the dmc backend and so they have to pay
royalties.  Or if he were to read the code for gcc's backend, Symantec
could in theory accuse him of incorporating GPL code into the dmc
backend (since he's still working on the backend every now and then),
which is incompatible with the license.

Of course, IANAL so this relicensing may not necessarily imply that
Walter is now free to read / work on other compiler backends. Nor does
he necessarily want to do so anyway.

But regardless, this is a major step forward at least in the aspect of
finally putting to rest the "D is non-free" FUD that's been spreading
around over the years.


T

-- 
Bare foot: (n.) A device for locating thumb tacks on the floor.
Apr 07 2017
prev sibling next sibling parent Johannes Pfau <nospam example.com> writes:
Am Fri, 7 Apr 2017 08:14:40 -0700
schrieb Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com>:


 https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680
 
 Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to
 relicense it. Thank you, Symantec!


Great news! Maybe someone could notify http://phoronix.com . They've
blogged about D before and reach quite some linux users and developers.


-- Johannes
Apr 07 2017
prev sibling next sibling parent rikki cattermole <rikki cattermole.co.nz> writes:
On 07/04/2017 4:14 PM, 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!


Hip hip hooray!
I'm gonna go get some cake in a cup!
Apr 07 2017
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
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.
Apr 07 2017
next sibling parent ketmar <ketmar ketmar.no-ip.org> writes:
Walter Bright 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.


yay!
Apr 07 2017
prev sibling next sibling parent reply David Nadlinger <code klickverbot.at> writes:
On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 21:49:22 UTC, Walter Bright 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.


Just to clarify for people not usually frequenting these circles: 
LDC does support DMD-style inline assembly, but we use a 
different implementation.

  — David
Apr 07 2017
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 4/7/2017 3:22 PM, David Nadlinger wrote:

 Just to clarify for people not usually frequenting these circles: LDC does
 support DMD-style inline assembly, but we use a different implementation.



Thanks for pointing that out, I didn't know that. I just assumed LDC would have 
gone with a clang-style inline assembler (does clang even have inline asm?).
Apr 07 2017
parent David Nadlinger <code klickverbot.at> writes:
On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 22:57:39 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

 Thanks for pointing that out, I didn't know that. I just 
 assumed LDC would have gone with a clang-style inline assembler 
 (does clang even have inline asm?).


LDC supports both DMD-style asm {} blocks as well as LLVM's 
native inline assembly format, which is very similar to GCC's, 
with explicit clobber specifications and explicit parameter 
passing (https://wiki.dlang.org/LDC_inline_assembly_expressions). 
The latter is useful on non-x86 platforms as well as to allow 
more optimizations of functions using inline asm such as inlining 
(although inlining in particular can also be enabled for 
DMD-style asm blocks using a pragma).

There are also inline IR expressions for the few situations where 
you don't want to drop down all the way to inline assembly but 
still need to crack open the hood and control the emitted LLVM 
IR: https://wiki.dlang.org/LDC_inline_IR. For example, we use it 
to implement some target-independent SIMD intrinsics in the 
library.

  — David
Apr 07 2017
prev sibling parent reply Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d-announce writes:
On 7 April 2017 at 23:49, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce
<digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> 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 license was the reason why it's not included. ;-)
Apr 08 2017
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
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
 <digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> 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 license was the reason why it's not included.
;-)


Having an inline assembler is a lot less important than it used to be, so this 
is not a big issue. David also hinted that ldc wrote a work-alike, so this was 
likely an issue for them.
Apr 08 2017
parent reply Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d-announce writes:
On 8 April 2017 at 18:48, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce
<digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> 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
 <digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> 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 license was the reason why it's not
 included. ;-)


 Having an inline assembler is a lot less important than it used to be, so
 this is not a big issue. David also hinted that ldc wrote a work-alike, so
 this was likely an issue for them.


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 outside the scope of what I see should be handled
at the language level in the compiler.
Apr 08 2017
parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
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 outside the scope of what I see should be handled
 at the language level in the compiler.



Thanks for clarifying. I did not know that history.
Apr 08 2017
prev sibling next sibling parent Paolo Invernizzi <paolo.invernizzi gmail.com> writes:
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!


Congrats! That's a big win, and you deserve all the merits!

Enjoy the moment!

---
Paolo
Apr 07 2017
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Jack Stouffer <jack jackstouffer.com> writes:
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!


Something that just popped into my head:

You've said that you've avoided ever looking at other compiler's 
code to avoid legal trouble. Is that problem gone now?
Apr 07 2017
next sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 4/7/2017 3:57 PM, Jack Stouffer wrote:

 You've said that you've avoided ever looking at other compiler's code to avoid
 legal trouble. Is that problem gone now?


No, unless the other compiler is Boost as well.
Apr 07 2017
prev sibling parent ketmar <ketmar ketmar.no-ip.org> writes:
Jack Stouffer wrote:


 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!


 Something that just popped into my head:

 You've said that you've avoided ever looking at other compiler's code to 
 avoid legal trouble. Is that problem gone now?


nope. GPL programmers can safely look into BSDL code, for example, 'cause 
it is ok to put GPL alongside of BSDL. but BSDL programmers can't "just 
take" GPL code.

that is, it is prolly nobody will sue Walter for "copying GPL code", but it 
is better to be safe than sorry.

this is how i see the things, of course, it's not the authoritative answer.
Apr 07 2017
prev sibling next sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Apr 07 2017
prev sibling next sibling parent Kyle <kyle kyle.kyle> writes:
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!


Excellent, good work.
Apr 07 2017
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa)" <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
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 *well-deserved* here not only from 
Walter's work, but also by Symantec themselves.

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 at Symantec have earned an enormous 
amount of respect from me, and dare I say, the whole D language 
community as well, in this one much-appreciated move. Major kudos, and 
eternal thanks to all involved :)
Apr 08 2017
parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
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 at Symantec have earned an enormous amount of respect from me, and
 dare I say, the whole D language community as well, in this one
much-appreciated
 move. Major kudos, and eternal thanks to all involved :)


Symantec has nothing to gain from this, they are doing it to be nice to us. In 
fact it cost them as some well paid people invested the time and did the leg 
work on our behalf.

It really is awesome.
Apr 08 2017
prev sibling next sibling parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
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
Apr 08 2017
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Martin Tschierschke <mt smartdolphin.de> writes:
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, with success:

Programmiersprache D: Referenzcompiler DMD unter freier Lizenz

https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Programmiersprache-D-Referenzcompiler-DMD-unter-freier-Lizenz-3678894.html

I propose that the D Language Foundation releases an official 
press release about the new situation  and send it to all 
important it/computer magazines.

May be we can talk about pr strategy for D in general at Dconf.

Regards mt.
Apr 08 2017
parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
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.
Apr 08 2017
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Jethro <qyzz gr.ff> writes:
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 scripting like engine(D app 
compiles D code then dynamically links in code while running)?
Apr 08 2017
parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
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.
Apr 08 2017
prev sibling next sibling parent reply jollie <jollie home.net> writes:
Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> 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 way for the conversion of
 the backend to from c++ to d?

--
Apr 08 2017
parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 4/8/2017 10:18 PM, jollie wrote:

 Will this change in licensing pave the way for the conversion of
  the backend to from c++ to d?


That was going to happen anyway, but it makes it more worthwhile.
Apr 09 2017
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On 4/7/17 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!


Awesome news!

As a compiler-writer no-nothing, does this have any implications on the 
various back-ends gaining ideas/code from each other? That is, is it 
possible we see LDC compile times go down, or DMD optimizations get better?

I hope you tell the story of how this came about at Dconf :)

-Steve
Apr 09 2017
parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 4/9/2017 12:05 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 As a compiler-writer no-nothing, does this have any implications on the various
 back-ends gaining ideas/code from each other? That is, is it possible we see
LDC
 compile times go down, or DMD optimizations get better?


You can't change the license or copyright on the code, i.e. you can't transmit 
code from DMD to LDC and change the license of it. And LDC code cannot be 
transmitted to DMD and have its license changed.

So whether this is possible or not depends. If the LDC license is more 
restrictive than Boost, then DMD cannot incorporate that code.
Apr 09 2017
prev sibling next sibling parent Bastiaan Veelo <Bastiaan Veelo.net> writes:
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!


Congratulations, and thank you Symantec :-)

Bastiaan.
Apr 09 2017
prev sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 4/7/2017 8:14 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!


While it's still easy to find, for future reference:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14060846

https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/6419py/the_official_d_compiler_is_now_free_as_in_freedom/
Apr 09 2017