On 07/04/2017 4:14 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
> https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680
>
> Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to relicense
> it. Thank you, Symantec!

Hip hip hooray!
I'm gonna go get some cake in a cup!

On 4/7/2017 1:02 PM, Jack Stouffer wrote:
> AFAIK the reasons it was chosen were
>
> 1. It's as close to public domain as you can get in international law

Yes.

> 2. It's on all of the "Accepted OSS Licenses" lists that major corps have
> because of Boost itself being used in those companies. If your license isn't on
> the list, your project isn't being used.

Yup. We figured every corporation that uses C++ has accepted Boost, so this would be a no-brainer for them to accept D's license.

On 4/7/2017 2:04 PM, Jesse Phillips wrote:
> MIT almost equal though.

I suspect that the reason MIT came up with their own license is so they could call it the "MIT License". Branding, ya know.

Note that this also resolves the long-standing legal issue with D's inline assembler being backend licensed, and so not portable to gdc/ldc.

On 4/7/2017 12:02 PM, Radu wrote:
> Also, big up for the whole community as there is a big positive vibe around the
> news and nobody is complaining about basic stuff missing line website, docs,
> infrastructure etc.

Yes, it's the most positive response to us I've ever seen on HN, by far.

On 4/7/2017 1:28 PM, Ulrich Küttler wrote:
> With all those forks of dmd now well underway, can I please reserve the name
> 'dork'? ;)

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

(Hey, I'm feeling pretty good today!)

On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 15:35:00 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> It applies to all of it!

Cool :-)

My question should have been more specific: will we see the patch changing the license in the source code applied to existing stable release branches?

I'd really appreciate it if we could get such a patch applied at least to the current stable release.  Obviously the code's real license is now officially Boost by your decision, but it's nice to have the source clearly match up to this.

Walter Bright wrote:

> Note that this also resolves the long-standing legal issue with D's inline assembler being backend licensed, and so not portable to gdc/ldc.

yay!

On 4/7/2017 2:54 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
> My question should have been more specific: will we see the patch changing the
> license in the source code applied to existing stable release branches?
>
> I'd really appreciate it if we could get such a patch applied at least to the
> current stable release.  Obviously the code's real license is now officially
> Boost by your decision, but it's nice to have the source clearly match up to this.

I'll defer to Martin Nowak on what to do about that.

It would help for those who need this for specific versions to let Martin know which ones.

On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 21:49:22 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> Note that this also resolves the long-standing legal issue with D's inline assembler being backend licensed, and so not portable to gdc/ldc.

Just to clarify for people not usually frequenting these circles: LDC does support DMD-style inline assembly, but we use a different implementation.

 — David