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

[Brad Roberts]

Mike Parker wrote:
> 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.

D meaning DMD can't be the case since the DMD compiler is most 
definitely NOT open source.  Parts of it are licensed for use in an open 
way, but not all of it.

Later,
Brad