D Compiler as a Library

[Roman D. Boiko]

On Thursday, 19 April 2012 at 15:11:50 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
> On Thursday, 19 April 2012 at 10:15:36 UTC, Roman D. Boiko 
> wrote:
>> Actually, I prefer Boost only because it is slightly more 
>> popular […]
>
> Not to argue about the Boost license being popular in the D 
> community, and not that the question would really matter, but 
> what leads you to this general conclusion? I couldn't find any 
> credible statistics on a quick Google search, but a numer of 
> well known projects use the/a MIT license (X, Ruby on Rails, 
> Mono, Lua, …).
>
> David

I wish I could delete that post :) My claim is not based on any 
research.
However, I prefer Boost because:

"The Boost Software License is based upon the MIT license, but 
differs from the MIT license in that it:

(i) makes clear that licenses can be granted to organizations as 
well as individuals;

(ii) does not require that the license appear with executables or 
other binary uses of the library;

(iii) expressly disclaims -- on behalf of the author and 
copyright holders of the software only -- the warranty of title 
(a warranty that, under the Uniform Commercial Code, is separate 
from the warranty of non-infringement)

(iv) does not extend the disclaimer of warranties to licensees, 
so that they may, if they choose, undertake such warranties 
(e.g., in exchange for payment)."

http://ideas.opensource.org/ticket/45