I see so many people here asking if they can use D for commercial projects, and I dont understand how this could ever be a problem because no language could ever take off if it wasnt available freely. And even if the current D license prevents commercial apps, other people are going to make implementations of D with their own licenses - so why worry? Just enjoy D.

imr1984 wrote:
> I see so many people here asking if they can use D for commercial projects, and
> I dont understand how this could ever be a problem because no language could
> ever take off if it wasnt available freely. And even if the current D license
> prevents commercial apps, other people are going to make implementations of D
> with their own licenses - so why worry? Just enjoy D.

Because people make stupid license choices all the time. There are lots of languages out there with restrictive licenses and their inventors still wonder why they don't "take off".

Regarding other implementations: there may be patents on some of the language constructs that prevent that. For example, I guess Walter could have obtained a patent on his variation of the foreach mechanism for classes (i.e. opApply). That would make other implementations impossible if Walter decided not to license the patent.

Because of these issues it is reasonable to investigate the licensing issues of any language one plans to use. Both because you could end up in a costly infringement lawsuit and because such things might prevent wide-spread adoption of the language.


Hauke

All EXEs are written in machine code  :)

I'm left wondering how, given an EXE, one could determine the language used in its design. Of course, detecting a garbage collector could be a big clue.

imr1984 wrote:
>
> I see so many people here asking if they can use D for commercial projects, and
> I dont understand how this could ever be a problem because no language could
> ever take off if it wasnt available freely. And even if the current D license
> prevents commercial apps, other people are going to make implementations of D
> with their own licenses - so why worry? Just enjoy D.

In a world with terribly paranoid management it's a reasonable question to ask.  If I am to have any hope in justifying the use of D in a commercial project at my current work (new offers welcome ;) ), my argument will have to pass the scrutiny of the legal department before I go to the build team and try to convince them to support a new compiler.  And their desire to read, understand, or accept any license besides a contract that allows them to pass the buck if something goes wrong is basically nonexistent.  Since many programmers probably aren't too good with legalese, the easiest way to know if a license allows something is to ask. :)


Sean

"imr1984" <imr1984_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:c8kroh$2of8$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> I see so many people here asking if they can use D for commercial
projects, and
> I dont understand how this could ever be a problem because no language
could
> ever take off if it wasnt available freely. And even if the current D
license
> prevents commercial apps, other people are going to make implementations
of D
> with their own licenses - so why worry? Just enjoy D.

Just to be clear, the current D license allows creating commercial, closed source, proprietary apps.

"Juan C" <Juan_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:c8l7bd$8sf$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> All EXEs are written in machine code  :)
>
> I'm left wondering how, given an EXE, one could determine the language
used in
> its design. Of course, detecting a garbage collector could be a big clue.

It's not too hard if the spelunker is familiar with the 'fingerprint' of how a particular compiler generates code.

Hauke Duden wrote:

> imr1984 wrote:
> 
>> I see so many people here asking if they can use D for commercial projects, and
>> I dont understand how this could ever be a problem because no language could
>> ever take off if it wasnt available freely. And even if the current D license
>> prevents commercial apps, other people are going to make implementations of D
>> with their own licenses - so why worry? Just enjoy D.

Well, mainly because it's be illegal. A little correction though, Walter
can't protect his programming language much - just the compiler. I'd
imagine that using GDC for example would avoid any license restrictions.

The problem D has currently is the fact that the license is, well,
really quite vague and more like a disclaimer than a license. It reads
to me (and others, I would assume) like: "I'm not sure how to avoid any
and all legal consequences so I'm just going to dump blanket
restrictions on the use of this software, and generally be as vague as
possible so I can defend myself in an American court." And I can sort of
understand this - I too would be scared to death by any legal system
that doesn't assume humans may have an inkling of intelligence/common sense.

"The Software is not generally available software."

Does this mean that I'm not *really* supposed to have this software?

"Do not use this software for life critical applications, or
applications that could cause significant harm or property damage."

This rules out pretty much absolutely any non-trivial software. And it's
not even a disclaimer. It's explicitly saying that you can't use this to
write complexish software. "Do not", not "Do this at your own risk."

Basically it's all rather confusing. A license is something that should
tell you what you are *allowed* to do beyond the base of copyright law.
It can also explicitly disallow a certain use, such as the
redistribution bit in the current license.

A disclaimer is something specifying what the producer of the Thing
(compiler) isn't liable for. The second paragraph in the 'license' is a
disclaimer. It's wordier than I would write one, but I guess if it makes
you sleep better... Saying "This software is provided 'as is', and  by
using the software you assume complete responsibility for any
consequence the use of this software may have. I'm not liable for
anything, whether related to the software provided or not." would
probably be enough.

A new bright addition:

"If you send any messages to Digital Mars, on either the Digital Mars
newsgroups, the Digital Mars mailing list, or via email, you agree not
to make any claims of intellectual property rights over the contents of
those messages."

No. You can't write something in a reasonably unrelated document and
expect it to apply legally. And I most certainly do not agree to make
any claims of intellectual property rights over for instance this
message. The portions of this message that are written by me are, as it
is, copyright me. You can't do anything about that, not with the news
server being a public server. *sigh* Americans. You have Fair Use
rights, you know, no matter what some Big Companies might desire.

To make it all further confusing, the Phobos seems to be covered by a
number of different licenses - basically whatever the author of a part
wishes. The Phobos 'license', per se, doesn't exist, and therefore
people must assume that it's the DMD license that applies, which is why
people keep asking about this here, and why Walter keeps having to reply
that the license is an Artistic/GPL (except the bits Walter doesn't own,
of course).

> Because people make stupid license choices all the time. There are lots of languages out there with restrictive licenses and their inventors still wonder why they don't "take off".
> 
> Regarding other implementations: there may be patents on some of the language constructs that prevent that. For example, I guess Walter could have obtained a patent on his variation of the foreach mechanism for classes (i.e. opApply). That would make other implementations impossible if Walter decided not to license the patent.

Thank goodness that ideas aren't patentable where I live. It's rather
quixotic, don't you think, how ideas are patentable in a country that
allegedly values the freedom of expression so much.

Cheers,
Sigbjørn Lunf Olsen

Ok youve proved your point - the D license is a bit crappy. But I still dont think why anyone should worry about this. I mean, by the time anyone here finishes something worth selling in D, there will be other implementations for sure / or the license will be fixed.

In article <c8mt7i$2npe$1@digitaldaemon.com>, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sigbj=F8rn_Lund_Olsen?= says...
>
>Hauke Duden wrote:
>
>> imr1984 wrote:
>> 
>>> I see so many people here asking if they can use D for commercial
>>> projects, and
>>> I dont understand how this could ever be a problem because no language
>>> could
>>> ever take off if it wasnt available freely. And even if the current D
>>> license
>>> prevents commercial apps, other people are going to make
>>> implementations of D
>>> with their own licenses - so why worry? Just enjoy D.
>
>Well, mainly because it's be illegal. A little correction though, Walter can't protect his programming language much - just the compiler. I'd imagine that using GDC for example would avoid any license restrictions.
>
>The problem D has currently is the fact that the license is, well,
>really quite vague and more like a disclaimer than a license. It reads
>to me (and others, I would assume) like: "I'm not sure how to avoid any
>and all legal consequences so I'm just going to dump blanket
>restrictions on the use of this software, and generally be as vague as
>possible so I can defend myself in an American court." And I can sort of
>understand this - I too would be scared to death by any legal system
>that doesn't assume humans may have an inkling of intelligence/common sense.
>
>"The Software is not generally available software."
>
>Does this mean that I'm not *really* supposed to have this software?
>
>"Do not use this software for life critical applications, or applications that could cause significant harm or property damage."
>
>This rules out pretty much absolutely any non-trivial software. And it's not even a disclaimer. It's explicitly saying that you can't use this to write complexish software. "Do not", not "Do this at your own risk."
>
>Basically it's all rather confusing. A license is something that should tell you what you are *allowed* to do beyond the base of copyright law. It can also explicitly disallow a certain use, such as the redistribution bit in the current license.
>
>A disclaimer is something specifying what the producer of the Thing (compiler) isn't liable for. The second paragraph in the 'license' is a disclaimer. It's wordier than I would write one, but I guess if it makes you sleep better... Saying "This software is provided 'as is', and  by using the software you assume complete responsibility for any consequence the use of this software may have. I'm not liable for anything, whether related to the software provided or not." would probably be enough.
>
>A new bright addition:
>
>"If you send any messages to Digital Mars, on either the Digital Mars newsgroups, the Digital Mars mailing list, or via email, you agree not to make any claims of intellectual property rights over the contents of those messages."
>
>No. You can't write something in a reasonably unrelated document and expect it to apply legally. And I most certainly do not agree to make any claims of intellectual property rights over for instance this message. The portions of this message that are written by me are, as it is, copyright me. You can't do anything about that, not with the news server being a public server. *sigh* Americans. You have Fair Use rights, you know, no matter what some Big Companies might desire.
>
>To make it all further confusing, the Phobos seems to be covered by a number of different licenses - basically whatever the author of a part wishes. The Phobos 'license', per se, doesn't exist, and therefore people must assume that it's the DMD license that applies, which is why people keep asking about this here, and why Walter keeps having to reply that the license is an Artistic/GPL (except the bits Walter doesn't own, of course).
>
>> Because people make stupid license choices all the time. There are lots of languages out there with restrictive licenses and their inventors still wonder why they don't "take off".
>> 
>> Regarding other implementations: there may be patents on some of the language constructs that prevent that. For example, I guess Walter could have obtained a patent on his variation of the foreach mechanism for classes (i.e. opApply). That would make other implementations impossible if Walter decided not to license the patent.
>
>Thank goodness that ideas aren't patentable where I live. It's rather quixotic, don't you think, how ideas are patentable in a country that allegedly values the freedom of expression so much.
>
>Cheers,
>Sigbjørn Lunf Olsen
>

"imr1984" <imr1984_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:c8n2gh$30h4$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Ok youve proved your point - the D license is a bit crappy. But I still
dont
> think why anyone should worry about this. I mean, by the time anyone here finishes something worth selling in D, there will be other implementations
for
> sure / or the license will be fixed.
>
But then again any company would not want to take
the risk, and would ask questions.

Phill.

In article <c8n814$9un$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Phill says...
>
>
>"imr1984" <imr1984_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:c8n2gh$30h4$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> Ok youve proved your point - the D license is a bit crappy. But I still
>dont
>> think why anyone should worry about this. I mean, by the time anyone here finishes something worth selling in D, there will be other implementations
>for
>> sure / or the license will be fixed.
>>
>But then again any company would not want to take
>the risk, and would ask questions.
>
>Phill.
>
>

I think the main risk from using D, comes from the fact thats its new and unproven; the license is more of a side issue (IMHO).