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

[Iain Buclaw]

On 13 August 2013 20:34, Joakim <joakim at airpost.net> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 13 August 2013 at 10:09:11 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>>
>> On 13 August 2013 10:55, Joakim <joakim at airpost.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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 ;-)
>
> You seem to have a lot of problems reading what's written. ;) The point was
> that if you are distributing dmd and phobos source with GPL binary tools
> like gmake or g++, which are then only compiled by those binaries, there is
> no problem with the GPL.  You only need to provide the source for gmake and
> g++.  If you were distributing gdc, which actually integrates with the same
> compiler backend source as g++, then you have to include the source for the
> gdc frontend and whatever other glue files it uses.  Since most source code
> doesn't integrate with the gcc compiler backend, the GPL licensing of
> gmake/g++ is not a problem for most projects, including dmd.
>
>

Right, the way you put it, looked like you were hinting that gdc was
an example of code that doesn't integrate the source for g++...

Anyway, IMO on the matter.  Don't distribute binary blobs with source
code.  If they wish to build a tool/library from source, leave
instructions in a README to tell them where to get all prerequisites
(eg: link to a tarball) if their distributiion does not provide
packages for said prerequisites already.


-- 
Iain Buclaw

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