Open source dmd on Reddit!

[Jesse Phillips]

On Thu, 05 Mar 2009 23:25:04 +0100, grauzone wrote:

> hasen wrote:
>> Walter Bright wrote:
>>> http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/82ck4/
digitalmars_d_now_open_source/
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/82cgp/
new_release_of_the_d_programming_language_now/
>>>
>>>
>> Wow there's a big fuss over there about it not being /really/ open
>> source,
> 
> To us, this doesn't really matter. The important thing is that we can
> build the compiler itself, and can debug it if it craps up (which
> happens often, sorry Walter). For example, now we might be able to find
> out on which piece of code exactly it segfaults when compiling. Oh, and
> remember the libc issues. Now users affected by this problem can compile
> their own binary.
> 
> When we want a completely free compiler for ideological reasons or for
> unrestricted redistribution, there's still LDC. LDC connects the free
> (GPL'ed) frontend with the free LLVM backend.
> 
> Also, I thought open source != free software.
> 
>> Can you explain (to the ignorant likes of me) what is constraining you
>> from changing the license?

Open Source = Free really has to do with how you define open source. And 
the definition that most OSS advocates use can be found on wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Source_Definition

"1. Free Redistribution

    The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away 
the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution 
containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not 
require a royalty or other fee for such sale.

2. Source Code

    The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in 
source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not 
distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of 
obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost 
preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge. The source code 
must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the 
program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate 
forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed. 
"

So it basically needs to be free in all senses of the word. I disagree 
but many others seem to hold this view. I don't know why they don't just 
call it "free software."