[svanleent]

There are many different licenses which can be used by the tool. Instinctively GPL comes up to mind, however if the tool or parts of it are to be used by proprietary software developers, it may be more wise to use LGPL instead. Maybe other licenses such as the CPL may also be attractive.

Hereby I ask the community to vote for the future of DDoc
_________________
How C++ became ancient

[svanleent]

As seen the following options were selected:

GPL, CPL and LGPL

I selected GPL myself, others CPL and LGPL. The problem of both CPL and LGPL is the possibility that the source of the software may be used in commercial applications. This means that commercial applications can link to shared objects using LGPL'd headers, for instance.

GPL seems to be more restrictive to this. A GPL application may be used by commercial applications, i.e. A commercial application may make a call to the software, bu not via it's source. But this again promotes some restrictions since it makes the software much lesser available to the masses.

CPL is a solution found at IBM(r) which is already superseeded by the EPL. Problem with this license is that IBM (and in the latter, the Eclipse Foundation) sees itself as master-holder of the software, which in my opinion does not enhance it's position as open-source towards the public.

Therefor I go for the GPL, because commercial software for D will wait awhile and it is possible to write LGPL interface headers towards the GPL application itself, therefor making it possible to use it within a commercial application, still promoting it as an open-source subsystem of the application.
_________________
How C++ became ancient