Pathing in the D ecosystem is generally broken (at least on windows)

[Laeeth Isharc via Digitalmars-d]

On Saturday, 26 September 2015 at 20:09:54 UTC, Joakim wrote:
> On Saturday, 26 September 2015 at 19:22:16 UTC, Laeeth Isharc 
> wrote:
>> On Saturday, 26 September 2015 at 14:31:15 UTC, Artur Skawina 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Given the DMD licensing situation, nobody will (or should) 
>>> even look inside the DMD repo for info. Especially that 
>>> "backend" string is really scary. I decided to blindly trust 
>>> your words above, and, with trembling hands, somehow managed 
>>> to click that link. Phew. That file really appears to be 
>>> boost licensed.
>> ...>
>>> Open source code hidden somewhere deep inside a non-free 
>>> compiler implementation might just as well not exist, as 
>>> noone interested will be willing to look for it there.
>>
>>
>> out of curiosity, what is your concern?  as I understand it 
>> you can produce derived works but the restriction is on 
>> redistribution of the compiler, and if you care about that you 
>> ask Walter and he says yes.
>
> Those who have had to deal with copyright lawyers become 
> paranoid: ;)
>
> http://forum.dlang.org/post/mailman.2659.1403347797.2907.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com
> http://forum.dlang.org/post/dmfr07$2u3u$1@digitaldaemon.com
> http://forum.dlang.org/post/euuvum$171f$1@digitalmars.com

well, okay, but the posts from Walter you link to are from more 
then eight years ago, and he spoke about how he was beginning to 
open source parts of Phobos (when D's status was rather 
different).

anything is possible.  but so long as Walter is with us and in 
control of Digital Mars, I really don't see that it is possible 
for Digital Mars to sue someone who has looked at the code, been 
inspired by it, and done something short of straight ripping it 
off wholesale.  because there's much more at stake with D, and it 
wouldn't make any sense.  it's not a company with the resources 
let alone interest to play games with trivial lawsuits, is my 
guess.

the contract nitty gritty only practically comes into play in the 
unpleasant scenario that Walter should not be in control of 
Digital Mars at some point in some decades, and I trust he has 
made provision for that.  (Walter?)

Artur makes a very strong statement that doesn't make any sense 
to me (and I have certainly had at least my share of silly games 
with contracts):

> Given the DMD licensing situation, __nobody__ will (or should) 
> even look inside the DMD repo for info. Especially that

He's entitled to his view, but normally one is taken more 
seriously if one makes a reasoned argument for a strong view 
(which he declined to do in that previous thread).  Prudence is a 
virtue, but it's not quite the same thing as blanket aversion to 
all possible risks - each must judge for himself, but advising 
others like this goes quite far.