licensing confusion :(

[Rikki Cattermole via Digitalmars-d]

On 14/07/2014 3:21 p.m., dcoder wrote:
> I am not sure if this is the right place to be posting a question
> on licensing, but hopefully so...
>
> I wonder if someone can explain the implications of using the dmd
> compiler which has (if my understanding is correct) a proprietary
> backend; how might this affect the commercial distribution of a
> project?
>
> So far the most concise explanation that I have been able to find
> is from a blog post from almost two years ago entitled
> 'Dispelling Common D Myths':
>
>>
>> Published 2012-10-10 00:58 by Abscissa in Coding
>>
>> The only thing that isn't strictly OSS is the backend of DMD, because
>> the rights are
>> licensed from Symantec. But the source for it is publicly available on
>> GitHub and open
>> for pull requests.  Worried about redistribution? Don't be: Just ask
>> Walter. He may be
>> under obligation to require his permission, but it's only a
>> technicality. Ask him, and
>> he'll grant permission. He hasn't been known not to. And note, that's
>> only for DMD,
>> and specifically DMD's backend. Everything else is fully-OSS including
>> two complete D
>> compilers: GDC and LDC.
>>
>
> Unfortunately, this is still not clear enough for me, and also
> not very reassuring.
>
> If I compile a project down to an executable by way of dmd, then
> would I need permission to distribute that executable as a
> commercial project?

Redistribution in this case was about dmd, not its output. However I'm 
sure Walter will confirm this.