ANNOUNCEMENT: GNU-D opens up shop

[Don Clugston]

Gabe McArthur wrote:
> In article <e2uvsh$22kt$1 at digitaldaemon.com>, Walter Bright says...
>> Kyle Furlong wrote:
>>> I think we can reasonably say... TROLL ALERT. Everyone, for Bob's sake, 
>>> just go to www.dsource.org, pick a project or start your own, and get to 
>>> work.
> 
> I haven't really overlooked dsource.org.  In fact I've been going over it quite
> a bit.  I really like what dsource is trying to accomplish, and I'm not trying
> to overshadow them or detract from what they are doing.  Instead, I want to put
> a spotlight on a problem in a way that the relatively loose collection of
> libraries on dsource simply doesn't address -- namely, bringing many people
> together around one project -- a project who's sole focus is usability.
> 
> Frankly, I think you're all pretty fantastic for working so hard on D -- it's a
> labor of love for many of you and you should feel exceptionally proud.  You are
> all competent professionals that love to explore new avenues and work towards
> making D a better language.
> 
> However, for everyone else out there -- everyone who isn't a born programmer --
> I feel that what D really needs is an entry-level configuration for would-be D
> hackers: something that 'just works'.  Look at Java and Mono -- these
> languages/libraries aren't just succeeding because they have great communities
> or prolific resources -- they're succeeding because they package together good
> tools, inteligent ideas, huge libraries, and wonderful documentation into one
> place.  And they live by setting project goals!  Everybody's contributions are
> being fed back into one location, one repository, one central nexus of talent
> and development.  In this sense, one might consider dsource a wonderful
> kaliedescope of talent and libraries, but what is probalby needed is a laser: a
> focus and direction to the whole project with mesurable goals and specific
> timelines.  (You can see from the current development of the gcd, things seem to
> be somewhat in the air in terms of maintaining contact and getting people
> organized.)
> 
> As for the liscensing issue, well, I came to the LGPL and GPL after looking
> through some of the dsource libraries and wondering at some of the liscenses
> (Ares, I discovered after questioning, should be under a kind of BSD liscense).
> I don't want there to be any question about the status of the gnu-d.org library.
> I really want people to feel that they can take what gets put up and do whatever
> they want with it, as long as they realize that the code isn't a personal right
> but a public ownership best served by having everyone involved.  Besides, it
> isn't necessarily handed down from on high that everything has to be under the
> LGPL (though the core library probably should be), as the community may decide
> that the MIT or BSD liscense will be sufficient in certain circumstances.  But,
> there again is part of my point: put a laser beam focus on what needs to be done
> and do that one thing well -- as a community.
> 
> And, just as an aside, I would like to say that just as many people here are
> disturbed by the power of the GPL, there are many, many other people in the
> world who hack every day under the ideal of free software. 

Personally, I'm OK with the GPL, when appropriate. (For example, I think 
it makes sense for an IDE to be under a GPL license). However, I'm much 
more disturbed by the LGPL: I believe it's a completely inappropriate 
license for libraries (in fact, inappropriate for *any* purpose).

Please make everything either public domain/BSD/MIT/zlib, or GPL, or 
commercial closed source.

Otherwise, I think it makes a lot of sense to have a site dedicated to a 
  unified GDC package.

  It's these dedicated
> individuals that I would like gnu-d.org to appeal to, as well.  The lack of a
> direct mission statement on the D website and a lack of explicit liscensing for
> every D component, I feel, is currently inhibiting some people who might
> otherwise join up.  (It might be unfair, but some people figure if they have to
> ask about what liscense it's under, they probably don't even want to know.)
> 
> To summarize: timelines, community, docuemntation, and packaging.  I think these
> should be some of the primary goals of gnu-d.org
> 
> If you want to join, great!  I know that I would love to have the company.  If
> not, then no hard feelings -- you're still doing great work for D, and that's
> what's really important!
> 
> Salud,
> Gabe
> 
>