The dmd compiler license

Tim Matthews tim.matthews7 at gmail.com
Thu Jun 25 05:47:00 PDT 2009


hasen wrote:

> 
> That's not my point though.
> 
> I think that the official/reference implementation needs to be 
> completely open-source.
> 

Because I'm bored I am actually replying to this topic. First how "open" 
do you like your source?

1. Open as in all code available? (This is where dmd is now)

2. Open as in gpl? Can derive more work from it if the source code is 
still available in the derived work. (This is where dmd front end is. 
Possible to re write backend and that is what ldc has done)

3. Open as in bsd license? Can derive work from it close up the new 
stuff and sell it. (llvm is actually ncsa license and dang is an attempt 
to make a D parser for it in the similar style to what clang did for C/C++)

Once you have decided on your license you can then proceed to choosing 
what parts of what project to re write or maybe you just like starting 
from scratch anyway.

Finally get the project going stable for a long time then ask for it to 
be considered as the reference implementation. You can't just drop dmd's 
existence / declare no such reference implementation while everyone runs 
around hurrying to build the completely open one.



More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list