I am not sure if this is the right place to be posting a question
on licensing, but hopefully so...

I wonder if someone can explain the implications of using the dmd
compiler which has (if my understanding is correct) a proprietary
backend; how might this affect the commercial distribution of a
project?

So far the most concise explanation that I have been able to find
is from a blog post from almost two years ago entitled
'Dispelling Common D Myths':

>
>Published 2012-10-10 00:58 by Abscissa in Coding	
>
>The only thing that isn't strictly OSS is the backend of DMD, because the rights are
>licensed from Symantec. But the source for it is publicly available on GitHub and open
>for pull requests.  Worried about redistribution? Don't be: Just ask Walter. He may be
>under obligation to require his permission, but it's only a technicality. Ask him, and
>he'll grant permission. He hasn't been known not to. And note, that's only for DMD,
>and specifically DMD's backend. Everything else is fully-OSS including two complete D
>compilers: GDC and LDC.
>

Unfortunately, this is still not clear enough for me, and also
not very reassuring.

If I compile a project down to an executable by way of dmd, then
would I need permission to distribute that executable as a
commercial project?

On 14/07/2014 3:21 p.m., dcoder wrote:
> I am not sure if this is the right place to be posting a question
> on licensing, but hopefully so...
>
> I wonder if someone can explain the implications of using the dmd
> compiler which has (if my understanding is correct) a proprietary
> backend; how might this affect the commercial distribution of a
> project?
>
> So far the most concise explanation that I have been able to find
> is from a blog post from almost two years ago entitled
> 'Dispelling Common D Myths':
>
>>
>> Published 2012-10-10 00:58 by Abscissa in Coding
>>
>> The only thing that isn't strictly OSS is the backend of DMD, because
>> the rights are
>> licensed from Symantec. But the source for it is publicly available on
>> GitHub and open
>> for pull requests.  Worried about redistribution? Don't be: Just ask
>> Walter. He may be
>> under obligation to require his permission, but it's only a
>> technicality. Ask him, and
>> he'll grant permission. He hasn't been known not to. And note, that's
>> only for DMD,
>> and specifically DMD's backend. Everything else is fully-OSS including
>> two complete D
>> compilers: GDC and LDC.
>>
>
> Unfortunately, this is still not clear enough for me, and also
> not very reassuring.
>
> If I compile a project down to an executable by way of dmd, then
> would I need permission to distribute that executable as a
> commercial project?

Redistribution in this case was about dmd, not its output. However I'm sure Walter will confirm this.

On 7/13/2014 8:21 PM, dcoder wrote:
> If I compile a project down to an executable by way of dmd, then
> would I need permission to distribute that executable as a
> commercial project?

No. Feel free. You are only obliged to not sue Symantec or Digital Mars over the behavior of that generated executable.

> If I compile a project down to an executable by way of dmd, then
> would I need permission to distribute that executable as a
> commercial project?

No.

Well that was not so hard...

Thanks everyone for nearly instantaneously clearing that up for me.

:D