dmd front end now switched to Boost license

[Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d-announce]

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. ;)