dmd front end now switched to Boost license

[Dmitry Olshansky via Digitalmars-d-announce]

14-Jun-2014 04:46, Walter Bright пишет:
> On 6/13/2014 4:31 AM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
>> It's probably nice to have less restrictive license, but what we aim
>> to achieve
>> with that?
>

I do not want to come across as rude but from pragmatic standpoint it's 
not interesting. I'm not opposing it (after all I agreed to change it), 
I just don't see any valuable gains.

> 1. Boost is the least restrictive license

This gains nothing in and by itself. 4 speaks of potential adv, which 
realistically is not something we desperately want. Maybe as a proactive 
move, that I could understand.

>
> 2. Minimize friction for adopting D

Let's not deluge ourselves, it does nothing to do that unlike many other 
things. Changing license of G++ frontend to boost won't make people 
adopt C++ any faster.

The only place of friction is backend, and opening FE for commerce 
doesn't help it.

> 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.

> 4. Allow commercial use of DMDFE (so what if someone does? It'll drive
> even more adoption of D!)

The only strictly valid point. Making commercial compilers and tools on 
D front-end is the only solid result this move enables.

> 5. Boost is well known and accepted

All of licenses are well known. Again by itself it's not interesting, it 
won't make dmd any more easy to get into FOSS distros.

-- 
Dmitry Olshansky