Optlink is on github

[Daniel Murphy]

"Walter Bright" <newshound2 at digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:khblbe$27f5$1 at digitalmars.com...
> On 3/7/2013 7:09 PM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
>> Good, but does the code still increase the difficulty in porting?
>
> I don't understand your question.
>

Does the presence of support for eg. linking OS2 executables make the 
codebase harder to understand?

>
>> And even once it's in C, optlink will probably never be more than a
>> win32/omf linker.
>
> That's correct. However, it'll be much more maintainable,

I don't know how much redesign you're planning, but I can't imagine it ever 
being as maintainable as a pure d codebase.  A less stable/complete linker 
that attracts more contributors should overtake a more stable linker with 
only a couple of developers that grok it.

> and it'll be a gold mine of information about linker trivia on how to do 
> things with obscure/undocumented/bizarre file formats.
>

What is the license on optlink?  Can other linkers actually use this 
information?