How can D become adopted at my company?

[Joseph Rushton Wakeling]

On 26/04/12 11:07, Don Clugston wrote:
> <rant>
> "open source" is a horrible, duplicitous term. Really what you mean is "the
> license is not GPL compatible".
> </rant>

No, I don't mean "GPL compatible".  I'd be perfectly happy for the DMD backend 
to be released under a GPL-incompatible free/open source licence like the CDDL.

The problem is not GPL compatibility but whether sufficient freedoms are granted 
to distribute and modify sources.  That has a knockon impact on the ability of 
3rd parties to package and distribute the software, to patch it without 
necessarily going via upstream, etc. etc., all of which affects the degree to 
which others can easily use the language.

> Based on my understanding of the legal situation with Symantec, the backend
> CANNOT become GPL compatible. Stop using the word "still", it will NEVER happen.

Please understand that I'm not suggesting any bad faith on the part of D's 
developers.  Walter's good intentions are clear in the strong support he's given 
to GDC and other freely-licensed compilers.

All I'm suggesting is that being free software (a somewhat better-defined term) 
was a key factor in some languages gaining popularity without corporate backing, 
and that the non-free nature of the DMD backend may have prevented D from 
enjoying this potential source of support.

On 26/04/12 11:27, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> And it really doesn't need to. I honestly don't understand why it's an issue
> at all other than people completely misunderstanding the situation or being
> the types of folks who think that anything which isn't completely and totally
> open is evil.
>
> Whether the backend is open or not has _zero_ impact on your ability to use
> it. The source is freely available, so you can look at and see what it does.
> You can even submit pull requests for it. Yes, there are some limitations on
> you going and doing  whatever you want with the source, but so what? There's
> _nothing_ impeding your ability to use it to compile programs. And the front-
> end - which is really where D itself is - _is_ under the GPL.

You misunderstand my point.  I'm not saying anyone is evil; I'm simply pointing 
out that the licensing constraints prevent various kinds of 3rd party 
distribution and engagement that could be useful in spreading awareness and use 
of the language.  That _does_ have an impact on use, in terms of constraining 
the development of 3rd-party support and infrastructure.

> Not to mention, if really want a "fully open" D compiler, there's always gdc
> and ldc, so you there _are_ alternatives. The fact that dmd isn't really
> doesn't affect much except for the people whom are overzealous about "free
> software."

Yes, but GDC and LDC both (for now) lag behind DMD in terms of functionality -- 
I was not able to compile my updates to Phobos using GDC -- and it's almost 
inevitable that they will always have to play catch-up, even though the impact 
of that will lessen over time.  That's why I spoke about the "reference 
implementation" of the language: D2 has been available for quite some time now, 
but it's only last Autumn that a D2 compiler landed in my Linux distro.

> I think that the "openness" of dmd being an issue is purely  a matter of
> misunderstandings and FUD. And if Walter _could_ make the backend GPL, he may
> very well have done so ages ago. But he can't, so there's no point in
> complaining about it - especially since it doesn't impede your ability to use
> dmd.

To an extent I agree with you.  The good intentions of Walter and the other D 
developers are clear, it's always been apparent that there will be fully open 
source compilers for the language, etc. etc.; I wouldn't be here if I wasn't 
happy to work with DMD under its given licence terms.  But it's not FUD to say 
that the licensing does make more difficult certain kinds of engagement that 
have been very helpful for other languages, such as inclusion in Linux distros 
and BSD's or other software collections -- and that has a further impact in 
those suppliers' willingness or ability to ship other software written in D.

It's also fair to say that if the licensing was different, that would remove an 
entire source of potential FUD.

Again, I'm not saying that anyone is evil, that I find the situation personally 
unacceptable or that I don't understand the reasons why things are as they are. 
  I just made the point that _being_ free/open source software was probably an 
important factor in the success of a number of now-popular languages that didn't 
originally enjoy corporate support, and that the licensing of the DMD backend 
prevents it from enjoying some of those avenues to success.

.... and I _want_ to see that success, because I think D deserves it.

Best wishes,

     -- Joe