On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 02:33:30 +0000 (UTC), Manfred Nowak wrote:

> John Demme wrote:
> 
> [...]
>>  The same is true for D. The spec is open.
> 
> How this? I remeber a post of him, saying, that the specs are plain old copyrighted.

I suspect that John meant that the specification is free to be used by people other than Walter Bright. The actual text of the published specification is copyrighted by Walter.

-- 
Derek
(skype: derek.j.parnell)
Melbourne, Australia
9/09/2005 2:31:18 PM

This is what I mean - it's all... not in writing. Nobody is seriously going to spend the time to implement their own version if they're unsure of murky legal waters up ahead. It should be stated clearly on the D Spec that it is open for all. Just don't use a licence like GPL. Yuck.

>>>  The same is true for D. The spec is open.
>>
>> How this? I remeber a post of him, saying, that the specs are plain old copyrighted.
>
> I suspect that John meant that the specification is free to be used by people other than Walter Bright. The actual text of the published specification is copyrighted by Walter.
>

"Rob Saunders" <chojin@internode.on.net> wrote in message news:dfpiuj$2sdi$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> To me, if one thing is to hold up the future of D, it's that tricky
licence.
> I couldn't fully understand it myself, and legally some aspects of it
would
> seem hard to enforce (however I'm not a lawyer either so who knows).
>
> How open is the D specification? The compiler itself may have a licence,
but
> am I within my own rights to create and distribute/sell my own compiler
for
> the D language? (this is entirely hypothetical -I don't want to create a compiler! But other people will and this will destroy D as a language if so).
>
> >> I'd like to know if D allows to create a proprietary, closed source,
> > commercial
> >> software?
> > Yes.

You're free to write your own D implementation from scratch, on your terms. I disagree this will destroy D - I think it is a great source of strength for other languages to have competing implementations, why not for D? I encourage anyone who wants to create an independent D compiler.

You're free to write your own D implementation using the DMD front end sources - use them freely if the result will be GPL'd, you'll need a license to use the DMD front end code for a non-GPL product.

The D specification is copyrighted. It is not patented. Therefore, legally, you can write your own D specification as long as it doesn't copy verbatim from the Digital Mars one. That said, I'm pretty easy about giving permission to do wholesale copying if I feel it will be good for the D community. Some examples are the foreign language versions of the spec prepared by others.

You may use the DMD compiler and Phobos library to create closed source, proprietary, commercial D programs without needing a further license from Digital Mars.

You may not use DMD to create programs which, if they fail, will cause injury or significant property damage. If you want to create such programs, you'll need to send me a piece of paper indemnifying Digital Mars from all liability.

Walter Bright wrote:

[...]
> Therefore, legally, you can write your own D specification as long as it doesn't copy verbatim from the Digital Mars one.

Thanks. At least to me its a relief, because I have tried to establish a context free grammar for D from the specs.

But in order to eliminate conflicts and adapting it to my style of specifying and according to the errors nearly everyone makes without intensively testing, I was and still am sure, that there is nearly no way accaptable by most legal communitys to prove, that the developed CFG is as close at the specs of that time as was possible to me.

Therefore, without a written assurance directly from you I was not willing to give the CFG to the public.

If I understand your statement correctly I am even free to simplify the specs in order to have a CFG with a shorter textual length and publish that.

-manfred

"Manfred Nowak" <svv1999@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:dfthjd$ahm$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Walter Bright wrote:
>
> [...]
> > Therefore, legally, you can write your own D specification as long as it doesn't copy verbatim from the Digital Mars one.
>
> Thanks. At least to me its a relief, because I have tried to establish a context free grammar for D from the specs.
>
> But in order to eliminate conflicts and adapting it to my style of specifying and according to the errors nearly everyone makes without intensively testing, I was and still am sure, that there is nearly no way accaptable by most legal communitys to prove, that the developed CFG is as close at the specs of that time as was possible to me.
>
> Therefore, without a written assurance directly from you I was not willing to give the CFG to the public.
>
> If I understand your statement correctly I am even free to simplify the specs in order to have a CFG with a shorter textual length and publish that.

You have my explicit permission to publish your CFG any way you want to.

-Walter

Rob Saunders wrote:

> To me, if one thing is to hold up the future of D, it's that tricky licence. 

Tricky licence?  D has one of the least "tricky" licence I've seen.

I don't understand what trick is referred to here, or is worrisome here.

Sincerely,
--Eljay

"John Love-Jensen" <love-jensen@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:dg1g8a$2k3u$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > To me, if one thing is to hold up the future of D, it's that tricky
licence.
> Tricky licence?  D has one of the least "tricky" licence I've seen.
> I don't understand what trick is referred to here, or is worrisome here.

There is no attempt to trick anyone with the license. If there is anything that gives that impression, let me know and I'll try to clarify it.

I'm sorry I didn't mean to imply anybody was attempting to trick, just saying I found it a little tricky to understand from a legal standpoint. Now that has been cleared up, I can see compiler authors have nothing to worry about, and D has a bright future.

"Walter Bright" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:dg4dqj$22bc$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> "John Love-Jensen" <love-jensen@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:dg1g8a$2k3u$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> > To me, if one thing is to hold up the future of D, it's that tricky
> licence.
>> Tricky licence?  D has one of the least "tricky" licence I've seen.
>> I don't understand what trick is referred to here, or is worrisome here.
>
> There is no attempt to trick anyone with the license. If there is anything that gives that impression, let me know and I'll try to clarify it.
>
>