Mass-enabling D => License question

[Max Barraclough via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 21 May 2014 at 01:53:57 UTC, ed wrote:
> Yet more GPL bashing? This is getting very boring these days.

No, I'm not *bashing*. Were I the owner of DMD, the restrictions 
facilitated by the GPL are exactly what I'd want.

I think we're agreed here really, ed.

On Wednesday, 21 May 2014 at 06:40:44 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> There's no need to link with DMD.

I assumed we were talking about using the frontend as a means to 
enable syntax-highlighting and such, rather than simple 
invocation of the DMD compiler, which of course wouldn't be a 
problem.

> It doesn't need to because it doesn't link with GCC. It uses 
> invokes GCC as an external process to
build projects.

XCode uses its own C/C++/Objective-C/Objective-C++ parser then, I 
take it?

On Wednesday, 21 May 2014 at 07:50:33 UTC, Joakim wrote:
> Not true, the DMD frontend is dual-licensed, both GPL and the
Artistic license:

You're right. Looking at Point 7, the Artistic Licence might 
allow integration of the front-end into a commercial IDE, for, 
say, syntax highlighting. 
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/blob/master/src/artistic.txt

> I'd hope not. ;)

Other than the Artistic Licence dual-licensing, what did I get 
wrong?