On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 06:53:37PM -0400, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > On Thursday, May 10, 2012 00:49:17 Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote: > > On 10/05/12 00:41, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote: > > > I do think, though, that it may be something that starts to bite > > > as the community scales up in size. > > > > I'll add one more thing on this: you probably don't know whether or > > not you're missing out, as there's no real way you can measure the > > number of people who would like to engage with D but don't because > > of the licensing issues. > > > > There _might_ be a surprise waiting the day the announcement is > > made: "reference D compiler now fully open source". > > But since that will never happen, it's a moot issue. It doesn't really > matter if we would have had 10 times as many people contributing > (which I very much doubt), Walter can't change the backend's license, > so we're stuck with how things are. There's really no point in arguing > about how it affects us (be it positively or negatively), since we > can't do anything about it. [...]
Dumb question: what prevents someone from rewriting dmd's backend with new code that isn't entangled by the previous license? T -- WINDOWS = Will Install Needless Data On Whole System -- CompuMan
