D Compiler as a Library

[Roman D. Boiko]

On Thursday, 19 April 2012 at 19:54:48 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> MIT's *much* easier to understand though. Boost has some real 
> goofy, obfuscated wordings. Although it's *worlds* better in 
> that regard than the completely impenatrable GPL or Creative 
> Commons.

Comparing http://www.opensource.org/licenses/MIT and 
http://opensource.org/licenses/bsl1.0.html, I would not conclude 
that Boost is  more difficult to understand.
>
> My favorite license, zlib ( 
> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/Zlib )
> doesn't have this #2 issue, and it's even easier to read and 
> understand than
> MIT.
>
> Plus it doesn't say anything like "to any person", so it should 
> take care of
> #1, too. (Although personally, I think I like MIT better in 
> that regard:
> It's a deterrent against corporations, which gives it a little 
> bit of the
> benefit of the GPL, but without all the bullshit.)

Here I do not agree either. Assuming that we would *want* such 
"benefit", MIT does not provide it.

As for zlib, it is very different from MIT/Boost, thus it is 
difficult to compare them (for non-lawyers).

License is a tool, and its up to SDC authors to select one. I 
just wanted to provide some information so that another option 
(Boost) is considered.