visual c++ licensing issues

Walter Bright newshound2 at digitalmars.com
Mon Dec 23 13:43:34 PST 2013


On 12/23/2013 12:50 PM, Stephen Jones wrote:
> Isn't the point that Microsoft have just illustrated that they intend tightening
> their grip over the development tools, in which case the future viability of D
> as open source is jeopardized; if you want to program D you will have to obtain
> some Microsoft license to access the linker required to use Windows 64 bit SDK.
>
> As for being able to generate D programs with just the Windows SDK, I was lead
> to understand D programming on 64 bit Windows platforms requires Visual C++
> linker and this linker can only be got by obtaining a Visual Studio, and that
> the last Enterprise and truly free version of Studio is 2010 which presumably
> will not keep pace with future Windows developments (I might be wrong on this,
> if for example the linker remains the same irrespective of changes in the SDK).


I'm not worried about it. I've had a license from Microsoft for 13 years now to 
redistribute some of their stuff with the free and paid versions of Digital Mars 
C++, and their assistance to my efforts goes back over 20 years. They've always 
been very supportive of what I needed to keep Digital Mars dev tools available.

Microsoft understands that by supporting Windows dev tools, even if they aren't 
Microsoft dev tools, they are supporting Windows sales and they care a great 
deal about that.

I'll also add that I've dealt with many Microsoft people over the years, and 
without exception they've been very nice and easy to do business with.

I understand that there is demand for a 64 bit D that has nothing to do with VS, 
and I expect gdc and ldc to fill that demand. There is also a considerable 
demand for a 64 bit D that integrates with VS, and that is what dmd for 64 bits 
is targeted at.


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list