On 6/14/2014 10:18 AM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
14-Jun-2014 04:46, Walter Bright пишет:


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.


Uhh, *no*.

Scenario A:
--------------------------
Them: "What license does D use?"

Us: "Well, it depends if you're talking about the compiler or Phobos, the standard library. Phobos is licensed under Boost, whereas the compiler is dual-licensed under both Artistic and one of the many GPLs. (Although the compiler's backend is a source-publicly-available proprietary due to insurmountable historical IP reasons. But GDC/LDC are fully OSS.)"

Them: "Uhh...what? And WHY? And WTF?"

Us: "You see, blah blah blah inclusion into user code blah blah Phobos templates blah blah blah GPL alternative blah blah GDC blah blah..."

Them: "Jeesus, nevermind..."
--------------------------

Scenario B:
--------------------------
Them: "What license does D use?"

Us: "Boost. (Although the compiler's backend is a source-publicly-available proprietary due to insurmountable historical IP reasons. But GDC/LDC are fully OSS.)"

Them: "Huh. Weird, but whatever."
--------------------------

I'll take B, thanks. ;)

Reply via email to