On Wednesday, 7 January 2015 at 02:16:47 UTC, Joseph Rushton
Wakeling via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On 06/01/15 23:32, uri via Digitalmars-d wrote:
The dmd backend is not under an OSS license, why haven't they
left? I suspect
there are not very many of the type of people you're talking
about in the D
community.
It's possible that you're right but I don't see it happening.
The backend
doesn't provide any benefit to GDC and LDC and Walter has a
very good reason for
closing the backend sources which is understood by all.
Small point: the DMD backend may not be released under a free
software license, but it is not closed -- the source is
available, development happens in the open, and in a de facto
(rather than de jure) sense there is little to distinguish from
an open source project. The licensing situation is obviously
unfortunate, but it makes little practical difference
considering that the vast majority of D language development is
in the freely-licensed frontend, runtime or standard library,
and there are two excellent free backends available.
This is a pretty good example of what I have referred to
elsewhere in this thread, about the contextual nature of
objections to "non-free".
Thanks for the correction, and a very important one at that in
the context of this thread. I wasn't aware the backend was open
source.
Cheers,
uri
