BCS wrote: > Hello GG, > >> Thanks Adam D. Ruppe ! >> It's clear now ! >> Maybe the web site could have a section talking about license because >> I know many people who don't use D and DMD because they are afraid >> about the commercial license. >> > > I think that's a fairly standard clause for just about every compiler out > there (with slight variations on what restrictions are implied), GCC will > have something like that (GCC is under the GPL but it's output isn't) MS's > compiler will have it (but it's buried in so much junk no body reads that > far). I wonder if DMD is suffering because it has a license that is both > less than FOSS and short enough to read? > > > >> GG >>
Apparently, but since the matter comes up so often, why not put a clarification on the website in addition to license. Something like the last two sentences of Adam D. Ruppe's post.
