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.