Why the DMD Backend?

[Shriramana Sharma via Digitalmars-d-learn]

On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 8:03 AM, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-learn
<digitalmars-d-learn at puremagic.com> wrote:
>
> that is exactly the reason i'm against LLVM: it's license. i believe
> that compiler and compiler construction tools must be [L]GPLed or
> proprietary, but not MITed/BSDLed/SIMILARed.

Heh -- fine for whatever compiler tools *you* create, but if someone
else creates it, and is willing to distribute it under a more liberal
license, why should you find it unacceptable, I'm not sure!

Isn't LGPL largely the same way versus the GPL?

And I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that even the Linux kernel code
(or most big popular L/GPL libs like Qt) has some BSD-licensed stuff
inside it...

BTW isn't Phobos Boost-licensed? And that's almost the same as
BSD/MIT/ISC terms?

-- 
Shriramana Sharma ஶ்ரீரமணஶர்மா श्रीरमणशर्मा