If D becomes a failure, what's the key reason, do you think?

[Mike Parker]

Stewart Gordon wrote:
> Mike Parker wrote:
> <snip>
>> Ah, so that's what you're after with this question - another platform 
>> for you to spout off about how D should be open source, as you have 
>> (repeatedly) in the past. Drop it, already.
> 
> What does it mean for a _language_ to be open source, exactly?
> 
> Stewart.

Heh, well. In this context 'D' means 'DMD' - including the back end. He 
has preached about it before. I have gotten the impression that 'D' has 
come to be synonymous with DMD in most conversations, just as 'Java' has 
become with the JDK.