Compiling with gdc vs. gdmd

[Alex Rønne Petersen]

On 05-04-2012 20:31, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
> On 05/04/12 18:16, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
>> In that case, that doesn't stop Waf though - your Waf build script is
>> just in
>> plain source form while Waf itself (which runs the script) is in
>> compressed form.
>
> But it does, for exactly the reasons I outlined. GPL-wise, that
> zipped-up part would be considered part of the build script -- after
> all, it's included in it, and so covered by the GPL provisions.

*Confused*. The way I see it, this situation is exactly equivalent to 
having a readily-available Autotools script that relies on a proprietary 
Autotools?

>
> It would be different if it was an entirely independent package
> separately installed on the system, but as we already discussed, Waf is
> not designed to be used that way.

I don't quite understand this, though. The fact that Waf sits in a 
source control repository shouldn't really matter at all. It could as 
well sit anywhere on your system; it just isn't designed for that.

Is the problem here that the GPL considers Waf part of this whole thing 
because you generally ship the Waf binary in source distributions of 
your software?

-- 
- Alex