On 2/26/2016 1:47 AM, Radu wrote:
Please don't get me wrong, we all apreciate what you offered to the D community, but all these legal arguments are strongly tied to you, and less so to the community.
Didn't Google get hung out to dry over 6 lines of Java code or something like that? And I don't know how long you've been around here, but we DID have precisely these sorts of problems during the Phobos/Tango rift. Ignoring licensing issues can have ugly consequences.
Your LLVM license nit pick is hilarious, you can't do that when the "oficial" D compiler has a non-liberal licensed backend, you just can't.
That's not under my control, and is one of the reasons why D gravitated towards the Boost license for everything we could.
But setting things aside, we all need to acknowledge that the current setup is not fair to motivated and proven third party compilers, their contributors, and their users.
I don't see anything unfair. gdc, ldc, and dmd are each as good as their respective teams make them.
The D ecosistem must create and foster a friendly environment to anyone wanting to have a good compiler that is current with the language/runtime/phobos developments.
And that's what we do. It's why we have 3 major compilers.
