An idea for commercial support for D

[uri via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 7 January 2015 at 02:16:47 UTC, Joseph Rushton 
Wakeling via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 06/01/15 23:32, uri via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>> The dmd backend is not under an OSS license, why haven't they 
>>> left?  I suspect
>>> there are not very many of the type of people you're talking 
>>> about in the D
>>> community.
>>
>> It's possible that you're right but I don't see it happening. 
>> The backend
>> doesn't provide any benefit to GDC and LDC and Walter has a 
>> very good reason for
>> closing the backend sources which is understood by all.
>
> Small point: the DMD backend may not be released under a free 
> software license, but it is not closed -- the source is 
> available, development happens in the open, and in a de facto 
> (rather than de jure) sense there is little to distinguish from 
> an open source project.  The licensing situation is obviously 
> unfortunate, but it makes little practical difference 
> considering that the vast majority of D language development is 
> in the freely-licensed frontend, runtime or standard library, 
> and there are two excellent free backends available.
>
> This is a pretty good example of what I have referred to 
> elsewhere in this thread, about the contextual nature of 
> objections to "non-free".

Thanks for the correction, and a very important one at that in 
the context of this thread. I wasn't aware the backend was open 
source.

Cheers,
uri