Have Win DMD use gmake instead of a separate DMMake makefile?

[Iain Buclaw]

On 13 August 2013 10:55, Joakim <joakim at airpost.net> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 13 August 2013 at 08:30:26 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>>
>> On 8/12/2013 11:48 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2013-08-13 02:42, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is is possible from a licensing standpoint to just distribute a copy of
>>>> gmake built by gnuwin?
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't see why we couldn't do that. It's a completely separate tool and
>>> shouldn't "infect" anything else. We might need to accompany it with a
>>> license
>>> file and a link to the source code to be on the safe side.
>>>
>>
>> Again, read my reply to Brad in this thread.
>
>
> Presumably you are referring to this quote, which does not show up as a
> reply?
>
>
> "Oh, I forgot to mention, licensing.
>
> We want Phobos to be free of any restrictive licensing. GPL is restrictive,
> and
> so is LGPL.
>
> We very deliberately picked Boost. Having Phobos be a mix of GPL and Boost
> would
> utterly defeat picking Boost."
>
> If you're only talking about distributing a GPL-licensed gmake binary with
> dmd/phobos, I don't think it has any impact on Phobos licensing, ie the GPL
> would only apply to the gmake binary.  The GPL is a very badly written
> license, but I think it has been generally established that you can
> distribute tools like gmake or g++ with your own code and that doesn't make
> your own code have to be GPL, as long as gmake/g++ are only used to
> process/compile your code and your own code doesn't integrate the source for
> gmake/g++, ie gdc, which is almost never the case.
>

Pardon?  (I don't understand what point you are trying to put across
about gdc, so I think it might be wrong ;-)

-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';