dmd front end now switched to Boost license

Sat Jun 14 17:20:11 PDT 2014

Kapps, el 14 de June a las 18:19 me escribiste:
> On Saturday, 14 June 2014 at 17:17:34 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> >On Saturday, 14 June 2014 at 17:07:58 UTC, Leandro Lucarella
> >wrote:
> >>OK, as a side effect of this, this might encourage companies not
> >>to use
> >>D but to develop tools based on DMDFE, but companies that are
> >>too lazy
> >>or to BAD not to contribute the changes back, which I'm not sure
> >>is such
> >>a good idea.
> >
> >I believe it is good thing. Standard tool chain should be as
> >permissive as possible, with no expectations from the potential
> >users whatsoever. If someone goes with proprietary closed solution
> >and succeeds - it is their choice and risk to do so.
> 
> And if they do so, it's beneficial to D overall.

Not if they don't contribute back the changes (at least compared to
using a license that allows them to build proprietary tools by linking
to DMDFE but forcing them to contribute back the changes to DMDFE
itself). I find hard to believe companies willing to do a full closed
source proprietary tool are willing to use DMDFE with Boost license but
not with LGPL.

In any case, I clarify once more that probably in practice this makes a
very tiny difference because usually you have to be too stupid to
maintain a fork instead of contributing changes back and let upstream
take care of all the updates, so I think that will hardly happens, this
is more a ethical issue than a practical issue.

I just wanted to point out that there might be more ethical licenses to
achieve the same effect (allowing companies to build proprietary tools
on top on DMDFE).

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)                     http://llucax.com.ar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
¿Cómo estais? ¿Cómo os senteis hoy 29 del membre de 1961 día en que
conmemoreramos la nonésima setima nebulización del martir Peperino
Pómoro junto al Rolo Puente en la ciudad de Jadad?
	-- Peperino Pómoro