[dmd-internals] dmd commit, revision 534

[Brad Roberts]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010, Leandro Lucarella wrote:

> Brad Roberts, el 14 de junio a las 10:16 me escribiste:
> > On 6/14/2010 6:02 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> > > Brad Roberts, el 13 de junio a las 17:23 me escribiste:
> > >> On 6/13/2010 1:30 PM, Benjamin Shropshire wrote:
> > >>> Brad Roberts wrote:
> > >>>> The problem with incorporating fixes from other sources is the same as
> > >>>> for
> > >>>> source code, the license they're under.  DStress has never made that
> > >>>> clear,
> > >>>> though it's intention is very clear.
> > >>>>   
> > >>>
> > >>> IIRC some big swaths of DStress are explicitly linked to bug numbers.
> > >>> Either derived from code in the bug to written explicitly to show a
> > >>> specific bug. I wonder if the author of DStress (is he still around?)
> > >>> would, at a minimum, place /them/ under some acceptable license (or even
> > >>> public domain).
> > >>
> > >> Yes, many are either directly in bugzilla or linked from it.  Since dstress is
> > >> gpl v2 (see other email on this thread)
> > > 
> > > What issues do you find in using some test cases with GPL license in
> > > a test suite?
> > > 
> > 
> > I really don't want to have tests under various licenses.  It's overly
> > confusing.
> 
> Confusing how? For test cases there are no issues as with the standard
> library, which will be included in every (commercial) product compiled
> with DMD and *must* have a rally permissive license.
> 
> You just need to be able to use and modify the tests, that's it. I think
> it's a shame to discard a *lot* of good tests, with a license that is
> more than sufficient for what is required just because, well, it's
> "confusing". I can't even see where can it be any confusion, maybe
> a little more maintenance work, but really, a simple line in each
> file with License: BSD/GPL/Boost/whatever is enough. Write one, don't
> care again ever! =)
> 
> If you decide not to include test with a license different from Boost
> (or whatever you like), I hope it has a real good rationale behind and
> is not just some allergy to GPL or some reflex from the traumatic Phobos
> license change =P

The test style for dmd is many tests per file.  To merge in dstress tests 
with a different license would by that nature result in different blocks 
of code within the same file falling under different licenses?  No, not 
going to happen.

So, that leaves the option of drawing a license barrier between files.  
That's certainly better, but also is far from ideal, imho.

All that said, there's a last reason that's not been discussed in this 
thread yet which is redundancy between the suites.  It'd be stupid to just 
squish them together and celebrate.  MANY of the tests are redundant.  
Determining which are and which aren't.. sigh.

Obviously any test that fails in dstress (or the ldc suite) against 
current dmd isn't covered by the dmd test suite (since it passes 100%.. 
being one of the primary release criteria for all dmd releases).  THOSE 
are clearly worth adding.  I expect most (and would hope all, but I'm not 
that stupid) of those are also in bugzilla, which has a clear public 
domain label on all submissions.


You're right in that we shouldn't raise license concerns needlessly, but 
neither should we proceed recklessly.  The DMD bundle is already a mess 
with respect to multiple licenses (parts non-redistributable (backend), 
parts redistributable under two licenses (artistic and gplv1)(frontend)).
I don't know that it's a problem to mix gpl2 into that mess, but I'd 
prefer not to find out if it can be avoided.  

So.. considering the above.  The question left in my mind is:

Is there enough value in digging out tests in dstress that aren't in 
bugzilla attached to yet-to-be-fixed-bugs that it's worth both accepting 
multiple licenses on the tests and actually going through the effort to 
dig out those tests?

My gut tells me no, but, please, keep trying to convince me I'm wrong.

The irony (agony?) here is that if Thomas were still around, I suspect 
he'd say 'do what ever you want with them'.

Later,
Brad