• dcoder (14/28) Jul 13 2014 I am not sure if this is the right place to be posting a question
• Rikki Cattermole (3/34) Jul 13 2014 Redistribution in this case was about dmd, not its output. However I'm
• Walter Bright (3/6) Jul 13 2014 No. Feel free. You are only obliged to not sue Symantec or Digital Mars ...
• dcoder (4/4) Jul 13 2014 Well that was not so hard...
• Jesse Phillips (1/4) Jul 13 2014 No.

"dcoder" <noemailforbots nobots.net> writes:

I am not sure if this is the right place to be posting a question
on licensing, but hopefully so...

I wonder if someone can explain the implications of using the dmd
compiler which has (if my understanding is correct) a proprietary
backend; how might this affect the commercial distribution of a
project?

So far the most concise explanation that I have been able to find
is from a blog post from almost two years ago entitled
'Dispelling Common D Myths':

Published 2012-10-10 00:58 by Abscissa in Coding	

The only thing that isn't strictly OSS is the backend of DMD, 
because the rights are
licensed from Symantec. But the source for it is publicly 
available on GitHub and open
for pull requests.  Worried about redistribution? Don't be: Just 
ask Walter. He may be
under obligation to require his permission, but it's only a 
technicality. Ask him, and
he'll grant permission. He hasn't been known not to. And note, 
that's only for DMD,
and specifically DMD's backend. Everything else is fully-OSS 
including two complete D
compilers: GDC and LDC.

Unfortunately, this is still not clear enough for me, and also
not very reassuring.

If I compile a project down to an executable by way of dmd, then
would I need permission to distribute that executable as a
commercial project?

Rikki Cattermole <alphaglosined gmail.com> writes:

On 14/07/2014 3:21 p.m., dcoder wrote:
 I am not sure if this is the right place to be posting a question
 on licensing, but hopefully so...

 I wonder if someone can explain the implications of using the dmd
 compiler which has (if my understanding is correct) a proprietary
 backend; how might this affect the commercial distribution of a
 project?

 So far the most concise explanation that I have been able to find
 is from a blog post from almost two years ago entitled
 'Dispelling Common D Myths':

 Published 2012-10-10 00:58 by Abscissa in Coding

 The only thing that isn't strictly OSS is the backend of DMD, because
 the rights are
 licensed from Symantec. But the source for it is publicly available on
 GitHub and open
 for pull requests.  Worried about redistribution? Don't be: Just ask
 Walter. He may be
 under obligation to require his permission, but it's only a
 technicality. Ask him, and
 he'll grant permission. He hasn't been known not to. And note, that's
 only for DMD,
 and specifically DMD's backend. Everything else is fully-OSS including
 two complete D
 compilers: GDC and LDC.

 Unfortunately, this is still not clear enough for me, and also
 not very reassuring.

 If I compile a project down to an executable by way of dmd, then
 would I need permission to distribute that executable as a
 commercial project?

Redistribution in this case was about dmd, not its output. However I'm 
sure Walter will confirm this.

Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:

On 7/13/2014 8:21 PM, dcoder wrote:
 If I compile a project down to an executable by way of dmd, then
 would I need permission to distribute that executable as a
 commercial project?

No. Feel free. You are only obliged to not sue Symantec or Digital Mars over
the 
behavior of that generated executable.

"dcoder" <noemailforbots nobots.net> writes:

Well that was not so hard...

Thanks everyone for nearly instantaneously clearing that up for 
me.

:D

"Jesse Phillips" <Jesse.K.Phillips+D gmail.com> writes:

 If I compile a project down to an executable by way of dmd, then
 would I need permission to distribute that executable as a
 commercial project?

No.