Official compiler

[Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 26 February 2016 at 06:19:27 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> I wish LLVM would switch to the Boost license, in particular 
> removing this clause:
>
> "Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above 
> copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following 
> disclaimers in the documentation and/or other materials 
> provided with the distribution."
>
> Reading it adversely means if I write a simple utility and 
> include a few lines from LLVM, I have to include that license 
> in the binary and a means to print it out. If I include a bit 
> of code from several places, each with their own version of 
> that license, there's just a bunch of crap to deal with to be 
> in compliance.

That's why I tend to encourage folks to use the Boost license 
rather than the BSD license when it comes up (LLVM isn't 
BSD-licensed, but its license is very similar). While source 
attribution makes sense, I just don't want to deal with binary 
attribution in anything I write. It does make some sense when you 
don't want someone to be able to claim that they didn't use your 
code (even if you're not looking to require that they open 
everything up like the GPL does), but for the most part, I just 
don't think that that's worth it - though it is kind of cool that 
some commercial stuff (like the PS4) is using BSD-licensed code, 
and we know it, because they're forced to give attribution with 
their binaries.

- Jonathan M Davis