> Yes, but you have to be careful, with a license statement like > the above, you probably have to adopt a chinese wall strategy, > i.e. anyone who has seen the run time library that is so > licensed should not be allowed to work on the implementation of > the replacement.
David send me a more explained answer, here is an extract of his mail: /==-- | The restrictive license mostly applies to the "recls" package which is not critical. | I will askthe author if he is willing to relicense the other two modules. If not, I | can rewrite at least one of them. | | My initial answer was too simplistic. The compiler is GPL, but the runtime library | would need an exception like libstdc++ has. I will have to talk with Walter and | the other authors about clarifying this. \==-- I really hope "Walter and the other authors" will understand how important it is to free a language and the tools around it. Did you look at the D language? What do you think of it? Will you use it if it was GPLed?
