How can D become adopted at my company?

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Thursday, April 26, 2012 11:07:04 Don Clugston wrote:
> <rant>
> "open source" is a horrible, duplicitous term. Really what you mean is
> "the license is not GPL compatible".
> </rant>
> 
> Based on my understanding of the legal situation with Symantec, the
> backend CANNOT become GPL compatible. Stop using the word "still", it
> will NEVER happen.

And it really doesn't need to. I honestly don't understand why it's an issue 
at all other than people completely misunderstanding the situation or being 
the types of folks who think that anything which isn't completely and totally 
open is evil.

Whether the backend is open or not has _zero_ impact on your ability to use 
it. The source is freely available, so you can look at and see what it does. 
You can even submit pull requests for it. Yes, there are some limitations on 
you going and doing  whatever you want with the source, but so what? There's 
_nothing_ impeding your ability to use it to compile programs. And the front-
end - which is really where D itself is - _is_ under the GPL.

Not to mention, if really want a "fully open" D compiler, there's always gdc 
and ldc, so you there _are_ alternatives. The fact that dmd isn't really 
doesn't affect much except for the people whom are overzealous about "free 
software."

I think that the "openness" of dmd being an issue is purely  a matter of 
misunderstandings and FUD. And if Walter _could_ make the backend GPL, he may 
very well have done so ages ago. But he can't, so there's no point in 
complaining about it - especially since it doesn't impede your ability to use 
dmd.

- Jonathan M Davis