Lack of open source shown as negative part of D on Dr. Dobbs

[Joseph Rushton Wakeling]

On 10/05/12 00:45, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Wed, 09 May 2012 18:32:26 -0400, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
> <joseph.wakeling at webdrake.net> wrote:
>
>> But there are people who _aren't_ willing to make that compromise, and others
>> who will be put off before they even realize that compromise is possible.
>
> There are those who will refuse to use D because it's not copyleft. Good luck getting those people on board ;)

Do you mean there are those who will refuse to use D if it _is_ copyleft?

I've never heard of anybody refusing to use a piece of software because it had 
e.g. a permissive licence.  Refuse to contribute, possibly, but that's a much 
more extreme and fringe position than the "must be open source!" one.

> I think we have a pretty awesome and talented team working on D, and in the end,
> performance is what matters, not who your friends are.

Re the team, we absolutely agree. :-)

Re friends: I always think it's a good idea to have lots, and from as diverse a 
range of backgrounds as possible.  I just don't see what _good_ it does to have 
the backend non-OS, given the possible harms it can do.

The short-term benefit is that the status quo allows the team to keep improving 
the language with minimal hassle (not having to learn a new backend model or 
negotiate with Symantec over licensing), but that's only a benefit up until the 
point where D2 stabilizes.  Beyond that, any advantage vanishes.