On 07/01/15 13:08, uri via Digitalmars-d wrote:
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.

Er, I have to clarify again :-) The backend license is not an open source one; it is, strictly speaking, proprietary:

However, the code is available, development on it is public, and Walter is very liberal in giving permissions to use, distribute and so on. I think that it's only constraints on Walter himself that mean it is not under an open source licence.

That's what I mean when I say it is de facto open, rather than de jure. But "in practice, not in law" is an important distinction.

Reply via email to