Mass-enabling D => License question

[Max Barraclough via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 21 May 2014 at 10:52:34 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>> Other than the Artistic Licence dual-licensing, what did I get 
>> wrong?
> Well, that's a pretty fundamental point, but it was a joke.

I think you're right - I'm not all that familiar with the 
Artistic Licence, but it seems a better fit for building a 
proprietary IDE around DMD.


 From this unreliable source, it looks like the Artistic Licence 
(at least Version 2.0, though I presume 1.0 is in the same 
spirit) is intended to be proprietary-friendly, so the GPL 
discussion is for naught: 
http://osdir.com/ml/licenses.open-source.general/2007-03/msg00055.html

DMD seems to reference 'Version 1.0' of the Artistic Licence, 
which the FSF consider to be too vague to really reason about:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ArtisticLicense