Pathing in the D ecosystem is generally broken (at least on windows)

[Laeeth Isharc via Digitalmars-d]

On Saturday, 26 September 2015 at 23:48:05 UTC, Artur Skawina 
wrote:
> On 09/26/15 23:58, Laeeth Isharc via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>
>>> Given the DMD licensing situation, __nobody__ will (or 
>>> should) even look inside the DMD repo for info. Especially 
>>> that
>
> Note that the above is not what I actually wrote, but has been 
> altered > with no mention of this fact.
> It's hard enough to convey tone via email; such manipulations 
> don't help.


I added __ __ around nobody to make it clear what I was referring 
to.  Do you have a better idea about how to economically 
highlight things when using a newsgroup interface?  It would have 
been appropriate to mention my emphasis, and mea culpa for that.

But when you say altered it suggests deliberate misrepresentation 
in a way that fundamentally mischaracterises what you wrote, and 
I don't believe this is the case.  I merely highlighted it, and I 
acknowledge that this might be misunderstood by somebody reading 
in a hurry.

>> He's entitled to his view, but normally one is taken more 
>> seriously if one makes a reasoned argument for a strong view 
>> (which he declined to do in that previous thread).  Prudence 
>> is a virtue, but it's not quite the same thing as blanket 
>> aversion to all possible risks - each must judge for himself, 
>> but advising others like this goes quite far.
>
> It's not advice, but a statement of fact. Well, the `(or 
> should)` part /is/, but it was parenthesized for a reason - 
> it's not the main point, but only a preemptive response to any 
> potential "but they should" reply.

Well, okay, I see where you are coming from.  But there's enough 
of this idea already that dmd isn't "free" in a way that 
seriously matters and that reflects a spirit that wouldn't like 
it to be free if commercial things were different that perhaps 
you can see why what you wrote might also be taken a certain way 
in this context.

Words have power, and it's easy to forget that when writing from 
a personal perspective.  (We're all part of the problem in 2015, 
me too).

> Obviously, "nobody" in this context does not literally mean 
> "nobody", > but nobody from the set of people with an interest 
> in the subject that might potentially create open source or 
> otherwise differently licensed works. The latter subset can in 
> theory be the same as the whole set (it will be smaller in 
> practice, yes).

> "Obviously in this context does not literally mean "nobody",
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes, well, context isn't always very clear in this medium, and 
neither is what's obvious.  That's a very big set!  I would have 
thought the set of people practically speaking is those that work 
on open-source or closed-source compiler backends.  That's much 
smaller than implied by what you wrote.  Also, the set of people 
with an interest in things vastly exceeds the number who do any 
work in the area.

> Considering that this discussion
> is about an apparently undocumented file format that Manu would 
> like to see supported in a differently licensed work (LLVM) and 
> thinks that Walter and/or DMD is a good, or even unique, source 
> for info about, then > yes -- _nobody_ (that would like to use 
> the information to indirectly > incorporate in into LLVM) will 
> look for it inside some other proprietary > compiler. At least, 
> they are _not_supposed_to_, and really shouldn't.  Even without 
> malicious intent it's too easy for the result to be
> similar enough that somebody can claim it's a derivative work.

I see your point that given the need for not just propriety, but 
the appearance of it then if someone were an LLVM contributor or 
serious potential contributor it would be best to do as Manu 
suggested and ask Walter than just look at the source without 
knowing its status.  I guess it's not so applicable, but you 
couldn't have known that before looking.  But then, if one's 
concern is primarily about legal risks, then announcing one is 
looking at code and making a big deal about one's concerns is 
hardly prudent either as a general strategy.  (And if it's an 
internal ethical concern that's between you and whatever you do 
or don't believe in).

> Hence, as it appears that the code in question is boost  
> licensed,
> (re-)publishing it in a way that would limit the "contamination"
> concerns might help Manu's cause, and does not require Walter 
> do much more than a git clone+add+commit+push. Convincing a 
> LLVM developer to support a file format that's documented in a 
> single boost licensed file is going to be much easier than 
> suggesting that they obtain the info from a non-free 
> non-redistributable compiler source from another vendor. And by 
> "much easier" I mean "possible", because the other option 
> simply isn't (and shouldn't).

As I understand it, it's redistributable if you just ask nicely 
and promise not to sue the various people involved.  My reading 
of what Walter has said on Reddit is that you could base a 
commercial compiler on dmd and sell it and he would be fine with 
that.  But perhaps that's not a license to allow others to 
redistribute, so maybe that causes problems with LLVM.

> every
> other `free-but-entangled-with-non-free` part of DMD has the 
> same problem.

Enough controversy for me for a while, so let's leave it at that. 
  I presume you're an LLVM contributor, and so I can see that you 
may have special constraints.




Laeeth.