14-Jun-2014 04:46, Walter Bright пишет: > On 6/13/2014 4:31 AM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote: >> It's probably nice to have less restrictive license, but what we aim >> to achieve >> with that? > I do not want to come across as rude but from pragmatic standpoint it's not interesting. I'm not opposing it (after all I agreed to change it), I just don't see any valuable gains. > 1. Boost is the least restrictive license This gains nothing in and by itself. 4 speaks of potential adv, which realistically is not something we desperately want. Maybe as a proactive move, that I could understand. > > 2. Minimize friction for adopting D Let's not deluge ourselves, it does nothing to do that unlike many other things. Changing license of G++ frontend to boost won't make people adopt C++ any faster. The only place of friction is backend, and opening FE for commerce doesn't help it. > 3. Harmonization with usage of Boost in the runtime library > In other words simplify licensing, but again compiler and runtime library do not have to have anything in common. There is no issue to begin with. > 4. Allow commercial use of DMDFE (so what if someone does? It'll drive > even more adoption of D!) The only strictly valid point. Making commercial compilers and tools on D front-end is the only solid result this move enables. > 5. Boost is well known and accepted All of licenses are well known. Again by itself it's not interesting, it won't make dmd any more easy to get into FOSS distros. -- Dmitry Olshansky