Mass-enabling D => License question

[Joakim via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 21 May 2014 at 09:17:34 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
wrote:
> You can modify a GPL'ed compiler to work as a stand alone 
> server with shared memory interface. You are allowed to 
> distribute it as a binary with other kinds of software. You 
> don't have to make source available unless the receiver of the 
> binary explicitly requests it, and only for the GPL'ed server.
I don't know about that last point, and I'm not about to reread 
the GPL to find out, but sure, it's all a matter of how tightly 
you link against GPL code.

On Wednesday, 21 May 2014 at 09:25:56 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 21/05/14 09:50, Joakim wrote:
>
>> Yes, but they moved to the UIUC-licensed (basically the BSD
>> license) llvm eventually, partially because they wanted Xcode 
>> to
>> directly link against it.  I think it's that kind of 
>> integration
>> that Andre and Max have in mind, though as John noted, they're
>> not particularly precise about what they want.
>
> That's a completely different thing. I would like to see 
> someone try doing that with DMD ;). I assume they didn't want 
> to do that since that feels quite unrealistic at this stage, 
> DMD is not really meant for this type of integration.
I don't think they know that. ;)

On Wednesday, 21 May 2014 at 09:59:54 UTC, Max Barraclough wrote:
> On Wednesday, 21 May 2014 at 07:50:33 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>> I'd hope not. ;)
>
> Other than the Artistic Licence dual-licensing, what did I get 
> wrong?
Well, that's a pretty fundamental point, but it was a joke.  See 
the wink? :)

On Wednesday, 21 May 2014 at 10:02:31 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
> Also, note that linking to GPL licenced shared 
> libraries/dlls/dylibs or whatever you use doesn't necessarily 
> mean the GPL has got you wrapped in it's rather fuzzy web.  
> AKAIK it's a matter of debate and has never been tested in 
> court, but it's enough for many current creators/distributors 
> of closed source software for linux who call various GPL system 
> libs via the shared library interfaces.
And constantly in flux, see the recent court decision that 
claimed that Google's use of Java APIs in Android infringed on 
Oracle's "copyright" on them:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/05/dangerous-ruling-oracle-v-google-federal-circuit-reverses-sensible-lower-court

> Also - and this is the biggest thing that people fail to 
> realise in all software license debates - it is a practical 
> impossibility to create a software license that is well defined 
> and valid in all jurisdictions. For a global enterprise, almost 
> *everything* is legally fuzzy.
It is true that widely varying copyright laws all over the world 
make it difficult for more ambitious licenses like the GPL to be 
written, as opposed to simpler licenses like BSD, but it is also 
true that many of those OSS licenses are badly written even for 
the one jurisdiction they were written in.  The Artistic license 
has taken a lot of flak for this over the years, same with parts 
of the GPL.