Mass-enabling D => License question

Jacob Carlborg via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Tue May 20 23:40:43 PDT 2014


On 21/05/14 02:16, Max Barraclough wrote:
> The DMD frontend is licensed under the GPL, which is 'viral': if
> your code links against it, you'll have to release your code as
> GPL.

There's no need to link with DMD.

> Strictly, John is right in that the GPL doesn't prevent you from
> charging for your code, but seeing as that code will be GPL'ed,
> anyone who buys it will then be free to share it publicly free of
> charge. (You're also required to provide source.)
>
> John's idea of having the user provide DMD, rather than bundling
> it, may or may not be against the letter of the GPL (I'm unsure,
> but I don't think it's exactly safe ground - your code is still
> written to the DMD ABI, after all), but it's certainly against
> the spirit.

It's not against the GPL license [1]. Many companies do this, Apple for 
example. They've created Xcode which comes (did come) bundled with GCC. 
Xcode is absolutely not open source. It doesn't need to because it 
doesn't link with GCC. It uses invokes GCC as an external process to 
build projects.

The code produce by GPL compiler does not fall under the GPL license 
[2], if that were the case GCC would be useless for many users and 
companies.

[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLCompatInstaller
[2] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#CanIUseGPLToolsForNF

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list