visual c++ licensing issues

[Stephen Jones]

On Monday, 23 December 2013 at 21:43:35 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> 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.

Thank you Walter. That is assuring.