On 6/14/2014 10:18 AM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
14-Jun-2014 04:46, Walter Bright пишет:
3. Harmonization with usage of Boost in the runtime library
In other words simplify licensing, but again compiler and runtime
library do not have to have anything in common. There is no issue to
begin with.
Uhh, *no*.
Scenario A:
--------------------------
Them: "What license does D use?"
Us: "Well, it depends if you're talking about the compiler or Phobos,
the standard library. Phobos is licensed under Boost, whereas the
compiler is dual-licensed under both Artistic and one of the many GPLs.
(Although the compiler's backend is a source-publicly-available
proprietary due to insurmountable historical IP reasons. But GDC/LDC are
fully OSS.)"
Them: "Uhh...what? And WHY? And WTF?"
Us: "You see, blah blah blah inclusion into user code blah blah Phobos
templates blah blah blah GPL alternative blah blah GDC blah blah..."
Them: "Jeesus, nevermind..."
--------------------------
Scenario B:
--------------------------
Them: "What license does D use?"
Us: "Boost. (Although the compiler's backend is a
source-publicly-available proprietary due to insurmountable historical
IP reasons. But GDC/LDC are fully OSS.)"
Them: "Huh. Weird, but whatever."
--------------------------
I'll take B, thanks. ;)
