14-Jun-2014 04:46, Walter Bright пишет:
On 6/13/2014 4:31 AM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
It's probably nice to have less restrictive license, but what we aim
to achieve
with that?

I do not want to come across as rude but from pragmatic standpoint it's not interesting. I'm not opposing it (after all I agreed to change it), I just don't see any valuable gains.

1. Boost is the least restrictive license

This gains nothing in and by itself. 4 speaks of potential adv, which realistically is not something we desperately want. Maybe as a proactive move, that I could understand.

2. Minimize friction for adopting D

Let's not deluge ourselves, it does nothing to do that unlike many other things. Changing license of G++ frontend to boost won't make people adopt C++ any faster.

The only place of friction is backend, and opening FE for commerce doesn't help it.

3. Harmonization with usage of Boost in the runtime library

In other words simplify licensing, but again compiler and runtime library do not have to have anything in common. There is no issue to begin with.

4. Allow commercial use of DMDFE (so what if someone does? It'll drive
even more adoption of D!)

The only strictly valid point. Making commercial compilers and tools on D front-end is the only solid result this move enables.

5. Boost is well known and accepted

All of licenses are well known. Again by itself it's not interesting, it won't make dmd any more easy to get into FOSS distros.

Dmitry Olshansky

Reply via email to