On 05/10/12 01:04, H. S. Teoh wrote: > 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?
Something must, as otherwise there would ay least already be llvm and gcc backends. Oh wait... artur
