add links, update license explanation

Author: WalterBright

faq.dd

@@ -201,21 +201,26 @@ $(ITEM q3, Why emphasize implementation ease?)
 
 $(ITEM q4, Why is printf in D?)
 
-	$(P $(B printf) is not part of D, it is part of C's standard
+	$(P $(LINK2 http://www.digitalmars.com/rtl/stdio.html#printf, printf)
+	is not part of D, it is part of C's standard
 	runtime library which is accessible from D.
-	D's standard runtime library has $(B std.stdio.writefln),
-	which is as powerful as $(B printf) but is much easier to use.
+	D's standard runtime library has
+	$(LINK2 http://www.d-programming-language.org/phobos/std_stdio.html#writefln, std.stdio.writefln),
+	which is as powerful as $(LINK2 http://www.digitalmars.com/rtl/stdio.html#printf, printf)
+	but is much easier to use.
 	)
 
 
 $(ITEM q5, Will D be open source?)
 
-	$(P The front end for D is open source, and the source comes with the
-	$(LINK2 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/download.html, compiler).
-	The runtime library is completely open source.
-	David Friedman has integrated the
-	$(LINK2 http://home.earthlink.net/~dvdfrdmn/d, D frontend with GCC)
-	to create $(B gdc), a completely open source implementation of D.
+	$(P The front end for the $(B dmd) D compiler is open source, and the complete
+	source comes with the
+	$(LINK2 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/download.html, compiler),
+	and is available on $(LINK2 https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd, github).
+	The back end for dmd is licensed from Symantec.
+	The runtime library is completely open source using the
+	$(LINK2 http://boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt, Boost License 1.0).
+	The $(B gdc) and $(B ldc) D compilers are completely open sourced.
 	)
 
 $(ITEM q6, Why $(I no) fall through on switch statements?)
@@ -241,14 +246,15 @@ $(ITEM q6, Why $(I no) fall through on switch statements?)
 
 $(ITEM q7, Why should I use D instead of Java?)
 
-	D is distinct from Java in purpose, philosophy and reality.
-	See this <a href="comparison.html">comparison</a>.
-	<p>
+	$(P D is distinct from Java in purpose, philosophy and reality.
+	See this $(LINK2 comparison.html, comparison).
+	)
 
-	Java is designed to be write once, run everywhere. D is designed for writing
+	$(P Java is designed to be write once, run everywhere. D is designed for writing
 	efficient native system apps. Although D and Java share the notion that
-	garbage collection is good and multiple inheritance is bad &lt;g&gt;, their
+	garbage collection is good and multiple inheritance is bad, their
 	different design goals mean the languages have very different feels.
+	)
 
 $(ITEM q7_2, Doesn't C++ support strings, etc. with STL?)
 
@@ -258,8 +264,8 @@ $(ITEM q7_2, Doesn't C++ support strings, etc. with STL?)
 	)
 
 	$(P Sure, all this stuff can be done with libraries,
-	following certain coding disciplines, etc. But you can also do
-	object oriented programming in C (I've seen it done).
+	following certain coding disciplines, etc. But
+	object oriented programming can also be done in C (it's been done).
 	Isn't it incongruous that something like strings,
 	supported by the simplest BASIC interpreter, requires a very
 	large and complicated infrastructure to support?