Looking for champion - std.lang.d.lex

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Nick Sabalausky" <a at a.a> wrote in message 
news:ia0v9p$11p$1 at digitalmars.com...
> "Denis Koroskin" <2korden at gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:op.vk2na9bpo7cclz at korden-pc...
>> On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 06:55:22 +0400, Nick Sabalausky <a at a.a> wrote:
>>
>>> "bearophile" <bearophileHUGS at lycos.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ia0410$1lju$1 at digitalmars.com...
>>>> Nick Sabalausky:
>>>>
>>>>> But that's all if you want generalized lexing or parsing though. If 
>>>>> you
>>>>> just
>>>>> want "lexing D code"/"parsing D code", then IMO anything other than
>>>>> adapting
>>>>> parts of DDMD would be the wrong way to go.
>>>>
>>>> Is the DDMD licence compatible with the Phobos one? Is the DDMD 
>>>> author(s)
>>>> willing?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'd certainly hope so. If it isn't, then that would probably mean DMD's 
>>> FE
>>> license is incompatible with Phobos. Which would be rather...weird.
>>>
>>> In any case, I asked that and a couple other Q's here, but haven't 
>>> gotten an
>>> answer yet:
>>> http://www.dsource.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5627
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Sorry, I wasn't checking the forum. IIRC DMD license is GPL so DDMD must 
>> be GPL too but I'm all for relicensing it as Boost.
>
> According to a random file I picked out of trunk, it's dual-licensed with 
> GPL (not sure which version) and Artistic (also not sure which version)
>
> http://www.dsource.org/projects/dmd/browser/trunk/src/access.c
>

That does surprise me though, since I'm pretty sure Phobos is Boost License. 
Anyone know why the difference?