DMD and commercial application ?

[Lutger]

BCS wrote:

> Hello GG,
> 
>> Thanks Adam D. Ruppe !
>> It's clear now !
>> Maybe the web site could have a section talking about license because
>> I know many people who don't use D and DMD because they are afraid
>> about the commercial license.
>> 
> 
> I think that's a fairly standard clause for just about every compiler out
> there (with slight variations on what restrictions are implied), GCC will
> have something like that (GCC is under the GPL but it's output isn't) MS's
> compiler will have it (but it's buried in so much junk no body reads that
> far). I wonder if DMD is suffering because it has a  license that is both
> less than FOSS and short enough to read?
> 
> 
> 
>> GG
>> 

Apparently, but since the matter comes up so often, why not put a 
clarification on the website in addition to license. Something like the last 
two sentences of Adam D. Ruppe's post.