On 26/04/12 16:59, Don Clugston wrote:
And the only one such limitation of freedom which has ever been identified, in numerous posts (hundreds!) on this topic, is that the license is not GPL compatible and therefore cannot be distributed with (say) OS distributions.
Yes, I appreciate I touched on a sore point and one that must have been discussed to death. I wasn't meaning to add to the noise, but your response to my original email was so hostile I felt I had to reply at length to clarify.
I personally don't think it's a minor issue that the reference version of D can't be included with open source distributions, but I also think there are much more pressing immediate issues than this to resolve in the short term.
By the way, there are plenty of non-GPL-compatible licences that have traditionally been considered acceptable by open source distributions -- the original Mozilla Public Licence and Apache Licence (new versions have since been released which ensure compatibility), at least one variant of the permissive BSD/MIT licences, and probably others. It's whether the licence implements the "four freedoms" that matters.
