On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 8:03 AM, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-learn <digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com> wrote: > > that is exactly the reason i'm against LLVM: it's license. i believe > that compiler and compiler construction tools must be [L]GPLed or > proprietary, but not MITed/BSDLed/SIMILARed.
Heh -- fine for whatever compiler tools *you* create, but if someone else creates it, and is willing to distribute it under a more liberal license, why should you find it unacceptable, I'm not sure! Isn't LGPL largely the same way versus the GPL? And I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that even the Linux kernel code (or most big popular L/GPL libs like Qt) has some BSD-licensed stuff inside it... BTW isn't Phobos Boost-licensed? And that's almost the same as BSD/MIT/ISC terms? -- Shriramana Sharma ஶ்ரீரமணஶர்மா श्रीरमणशर्मा
