On Thursday, 11 September 2014 at 19:23:27 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
I was quoting relevant passages.
Nothing unsound there. I am a newbie to dmd modding.
I discourage such behaviour, but the statements made by you and
ketmar in response to Daniel meet similarly low standards. I
suggest not to ascribe this incident too much importance.
I made no response to Daniel. (but his response was not polite)
If this happened, then you would be the one who authorizes
Dicebot to have such an effect: by your distrust.
No, the DMD developers have to back the license.
If the dev team don't undestand their own license then there are
three interpretations:
1. The project is lacking proper management.
2. They failed to add a clause to the contract.
3. Hypocracy.
Nothing prevents you from locking the license to the language
spec if you want to restrict usage.
Licenses such as boost, mit and bsd embeds expected policies that
implies that forking, competition and exploitation is ok by the
author. Pretending this is not the case will just create
confusion and noise.
