On 6/13/2014 8:15 PM, Mathias LANG wrote:
On Friday, 13 June 2014 at 11:31:10 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
13-Jun-2014 04:31, Walter Bright пишет:

Heh, I had been under the impression was already Boost. :P

It's probably nice to have less restrictive license, but what we aim
to achieve with that?

Make commercial companies contribute to DMD more freely?
    There is no problem even with GPL.
Let them build and sell their own products out of DMDFE?
    Highly unlikely to be a profitable anyway, and we'd better get
back the patches.

Wild guess: DMD in fedora, debian et al. repositories ?

I doubt it. First, it's the backend that's not technically OSI, frontend was (apparently) GPL. Second, I can't imagine any Linux distro rejecting GPL - they'd have to boot the kernel and core utils, too.

Boost has kinda become the favored "D" license anyway, Phobos etc., so it probably has a lot to do with that. Kinda weird to have the compiler and stdlib under different licenses.

Reply via email to