Romain Failliot wrote:
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.
That would of course be fine, provided you are not
familiar with the original code. But if you are,
it is problematic I would say.
|
| 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?
