The dmd compiler license

[hasen]

Tim Matthews wrote:
> hasen wrote:
> 
>>
>> That's not my point though.
>>
>> I think that the official/reference implementation needs to be 
>> completely open-source.
>>
> 
> Because I'm bored I am actually replying to this topic. First how "open" 
> do you like your source?
> 
> 1. Open as in all code available? (This is where dmd is now)
> 
> 2. Open as in gpl? Can derive more work from it if the source code is 
> still available in the derived work. (This is where dmd front end is. 
> Possible to re write backend and that is what ldc has done)
> 
> 3. Open as in bsd license? Can derive work from it close up the new 
> stuff and sell it. (llvm is actually ncsa license and dang is an attempt 
> to make a D parser for it in the similar style to what clang did for C/C++)
> 
> Once you have decided on your license you can then proceed to choosing 
> what parts of what project to re write or maybe you just like starting 
> from scratch anyway.
> 
> Finally get the project going stable for a long time then ask for it to 
> be considered as the reference implementation. You can't just drop dmd's 
> existence / declare no such reference implementation while everyone runs 
> around hurrying to build the completely open one.

Who said anything about dropping dmd?