i just started to learn c++, then i heard about "D". it looked good. i searched your web-site for information, i thought i should start learning it but you are secretive about exact information of your licence. i tried to search your web-site for license of D but concluded that you do not want to tell openly how exactly you licensed D. If you want to keep D under a ``Proprietary license'', then just go ahead and do it. what do you fear?. if you want to keep D open-source, then go ahead and do it.

-----------------------
you have made things confusing like this:

Q. Will D be open source?

A: The front end for D is open source, and the source comes with the compiler. There is a  SourceForge project underway to create a Gnu implementation of D from this.

> it is like :
> Q: what's your name?
> A: yeah, i am hungry.


Q: Which parts of the Digital Mars D implementation are Free software? [Apr 04]

The DMD front-end source is available under dual ( GPL and Artistic) license. Phobos, the D standard library, is now licensed under a zlib/libpng license unless the individual file specifies otherwise. The DMD compiler, back-end and libraries are licensed non-distributable under a DigitalMars license. The D language specification and accompanying documents are similarly copyrighted to DigitalMars. -- JustinCalvarese, additions by AndersFBjörklund

> this time Q has put limit on the answer.


The D language comes free. You can download the compiler (DMD) and standard
library (Phobos) in a package that includes the Windows and the Linux (x86)
system.

> even Microsoft distributes its Media layer free & that is not FLOSS.

----

i am not asking you to make D OpenSource, i am asking you to be clear. Keeping users of D confused will not make things better and only making things technically better does not guarntee any success. see WINDOWS, the much buggier OS, if not most, *but* it is a success. the richest person on this planet made his fortune not by selling airplanes, rails or petroleum but by selling  most buggy OS. *technical* matter (at OS level) doensn'n play here. what do you think?

it is just a logical explanation. be clear on D, please.

just a user.

thanks for your precious time.

-- arnuld

"the great intellectuals"

arnuld wrote:
> i just started to learn c++, then i heard about "D". it looked good. i searched
> your web-site for information, i thought i should start learning it but you are
> secretive about exact information of your licence. i tried to search your
> web-site for license of D but concluded that you do not want to tell openly how
> exactly you licensed D. If you want to keep D under a ``Proprietary license'',
> then just go ahead and do it. what do you fear?. if you want to keep D
> open-source, then go ahead and do it.
> 
> -----------------------
> you have made things confusing like this:
> 
> Q. Will D be open source?
> 
> A: The front end for D is open source, and the source comes with the compiler.
> There is a  SourceForge project underway to create a Gnu implementation of D
> from this.
> 
>> it is like :
>> Q: what's your name?
>> A: yeah, i am hungry.
> 
> 
> Q: Which parts of the Digital Mars D implementation are Free software? [Apr 04]
> 
> The DMD front-end source is available under dual ( GPL and Artistic) license.
> Phobos, the D standard library, is now licensed under a zlib/libpng license
> unless the individual file specifies otherwise. The DMD compiler, back-end and
> libraries are licensed non-distributable under a DigitalMars license. The D
> language specification and accompanying documents are similarly copyrighted to
> DigitalMars. -- JustinCalvarese, additions by AndersFBjörklund 
> 
>> this time Q has put limit on the answer.
> 
> 
> The D language comes free. You can download the compiler (DMD) and standard
> library (Phobos) in a package that includes the Windows and the Linux (x86)
> system.
> 
>> even Microsoft distributes its Media layer free & that is not FLOSS.
> 
> ----
> 
> i am not asking you to make D OpenSource, i am asking you to be clear. Keeping
> users of D confused will not make things better and only making things
> technically better does not guarntee any success. see WINDOWS, the much buggier
> OS, if not most, *but* it is a success. the richest person on this planet made
> his fortune not by selling airplanes, rails or petroleum but by selling  most
> buggy OS. *technical* matter (at OS level) doensn'n play here. what do you
> think?
> 
> it is just a logical explanation. be clear on D, please.
> 
> just a user.
> 
> thanks for your precious time.

There's nothing secretive about it. Everything you need to know is answered right there in the second question you quoted. If that's not clear enough for you, I don't know what is. The front-end is open source under dual GPL and Artistic licenses, Phobos is licenses under a zlib/libpng license, while the compiler and the rest of the back-end are proprietary. What's the problem?

This kind of legal crap is never clear anyway. Just deal with it!

Mike Parker wrote:
> arnuld wrote:
> 
>> i just started to learn c++, then i heard about "D". it looked good. i searched
>> your web-site for information, i thought i should start learning it but you are
>> secretive about exact information of your licence. i tried to search your
>> web-site for license of D but concluded that you do not want to tell openly how
>> exactly you licensed D. If you want to keep D under a ``Proprietary license'',
>> then just go ahead and do it. what do you fear?. if you want to keep D
>> open-source, then go ahead and do it.
>>
>> -----------------------
>> you have made things confusing like this:
>>
>> Q. Will D be open source?
>>
>> A: The front end for D is open source, and the source comes with the compiler.
>> There is a  SourceForge project underway to create a Gnu implementation of D
>> from this.
>>
>>> it is like :
>>> Q: what's your name?
>>> A: yeah, i am hungry.
>>
>>
>>
>> Q: Which parts of the Digital Mars D implementation are Free software? [Apr 04]
>>
>> The DMD front-end source is available under dual ( GPL and Artistic) license.
>> Phobos, the D standard library, is now licensed under a zlib/libpng license
>> unless the individual file specifies otherwise. The DMD compiler, back-end and
>> libraries are licensed non-distributable under a DigitalMars license. The D
>> language specification and accompanying documents are similarly copyrighted to
>> DigitalMars. -- JustinCalvarese, additions by AndersFBjörklund
>>
>>> this time Q has put limit on the answer.
>>
>>
>>
>> The D language comes free. You can download the compiler (DMD) and standard
>> library (Phobos) in a package that includes the Windows and the Linux (x86)
>> system.
>>
>>> even Microsoft distributes its Media layer free & that is not FLOSS.
>>
>>
>> ----
>>
>> i am not asking you to make D OpenSource, i am asking you to be clear. Keeping
>> users of D confused will not make things better and only making things
>> technically better does not guarntee any success. see WINDOWS, the much buggier
>> OS, if not most, *but* it is a success. the richest person on this planet made
>> his fortune not by selling airplanes, rails or petroleum but by selling  most
>> buggy OS. *technical* matter (at OS level) doensn'n play here. what do you
>> think?
>>
>> it is just a logical explanation. be clear on D, please.
>>
>> just a user.
>>
>> thanks for your precious time.
> 
> 
> There's nothing secretive about it. Everything you need to know is answered right there in the second question you quoted. If that's not clear enough for you, I don't know what is. The front-end is open source under dual GPL and Artistic licenses, Phobos is licenses under a zlib/libpng license, while the compiler and the rest of the back-end are proprietary. What's the problem?

arnuld wrote:
> i just started to learn c++, then i heard about "D". it looked good. i searched
> your web-site for information, i thought i should start learning it but you are
> secretive about exact information of your licence. i tried to search your
> web-site for license of D but concluded that you do not want to tell openly how
> exactly you licensed D. If you want to keep D under a ``Proprietary license'',
> then just go ahead and do it. what do you fear?. if you want to keep D
> open-source, then go ahead and do it.
> 
> -----------------------
> you have made things confusing like this:
[...]

To arnuld:

If I understand correctly (both your question and about how D is distributed):

	DMD, the compiler, is free to download and use but your not supposed to redistribute it.

	Phobos, the standard lib, is mostly open source. You can (I'm almost positive) use it in any project, change it, recompile it, redistribute it or print it out and use it to decorate you room. Provided you don't lie about where it came from or what it is.

	The D spec. (the actual text) is copywriter. However using it to make a new D compiler is more than OK. In fact, I expect we'd all be really happy if you did that.


To the rest of us:
	If this guy (who appears top have done a more than cursory examination of the docs) has trouble figuring these things out. Maybe we need to take another look at it.

(Drifting off on a tangent)
	Maybe we need someone to manage the not so technical aspects of the website. Besides, that might free Walter up for more work on DMD. Putting up a CVS/SVC/etc. copy of the website would let us all contribute. Then Walter could merge in the stuff he likes.

BCS wrote:

> (Drifting off on a tangent)
>     Maybe we need someone to manage the not so technical aspects of the website. Besides, that might free Walter up for more work on DMD. Putting up a CVS/SVC/etc. copy of the website would let us all contribute. Then Walter could merge in the stuff he likes.

Isn't that what the Wiki4D is for ? It's linked from every page ?

http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi

--anders

Yes, but having some sort of formal *managed* set of docs has its advantages also.


Anders F Björklund wrote:
> BCS wrote:
> 
>> (Drifting off on a tangent)
>>     Maybe we need someone to manage the not so technical aspects of the website. Besides, that might free Walter up for more work on DMD. Putting up a CVS/SVC/etc. copy of the website would let us all contribute. Then Walter could merge in the stuff he likes.
> 
> 
> Isn't that what the Wiki4D is for ? It's linked from every page ?
> 
> http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi
> 
> --anders

> 
>     DMD, the compiler, is free to download and use but your not supposed to redistribute it.
> 
>     Phobos, the standard lib, is mostly open source. You can (I'm almost positive) use it in any project, change it, recompile it, redistribute it or print it out and use it to decorate you room. Provided you don't lie about where it came from or what it is.
> 
>     The D spec. (the actual text) is copywriter. However using it to make a new D compiler is more than OK. In fact, I expect we'd all be really happy if you did that.
> 
> 
> To the rest of us:
>     If this guy (who appears top have done a more than cursory examination of the docs) has trouble figuring these things out. Maybe we need to take another look at it.
> 

This comes up often enough that I think a mini-FAQ should be added right by the download links summing up what you've mentioned above. Something like:

License summary
---------------

DMD
---
- You can distribute anything compiled w/ DMD in any way you see fit as long as you follow licensing restrictions (if any) on your applications source code.
- DMD is non-distributable except by Digital Mars or authorized affiliates.
- The DMD compiler front-end is open source. However, <license restrictions here>.

Phobos (a D language standard library implementation packaged w/ DMD)
------
- You can distribute anything built w/ DMD in any way you see fit as long as you follow licensing restrictions (if any) on your applications source code.
- Phobos is open-source, but you must follow the license restrictions found at the beginning of each module to distribute any Phobos source code.

DMD and Phobos Documentation
-------------
- The DMD and Phobos documentation is provided publicly for your use.
- You may distribute the DMD and Phobos documentation under the terms of <whatever the license is>.

Dave wrote:
>
> This comes up often enough that I think a mini-FAQ should be added right
> by the download links summing up what you've mentioned above. Something
> like:
>
> License summary
> ---------------
>
> DMD
> ---
> - You can distribute anything compiled w/ DMD in any way you see fit as
> long as you follow licensing restrictions (if any) on your applications
> source code.
> - DMD is non-distributable except by Digital Mars or authorized affiliates.
> - The DMD compiler front-end is open source. However, <license
> restrictions here>.
>
> Phobos (a D language standard library implementation packaged w/ DMD)
> ------
> - You can distribute anything built w/ DMD in any way you see fit as
> long as you follow licensing restrictions (if any) on your applications
> source code.
> - Phobos is open-source, but you must follow the license restrictions
> found at the beginning of each module to distribute any Phobos source code.
>
> DMD and Phobos Documentation
> -------------
> - The DMD and Phobos documentation is provided publicly for your use.
> - You may distribute the DMD and Phobos documentation under the terms of
> <whatever the license is>.

Too me it still sounds like you don't want me to use your software.  Or like you're covering your back so you can screw me badly and get away with it.  Like the sales contract for a second-hand car.

That's the problem, I think.  Both your version and the dmd faq give me the inital impression that this is unsafe territory.  Or at least, that it might be.  Just the fact that reading the faq doesn't really clear the issue up completely is a danger sign for many, I imagine.

It's like the door is closed, and then you open it up just a little bit.  The first impression should be that it's wide open - come on and use D for whatever you like.  No slimey lawyers attached.  The restrictions that are actually there, seem more important than actually are.

Most people are probably fed up with reading licences and trying to figure out if there's anything hidden between the lines, or not.  I think there should be a simple summary of the licence somewhere (outside the faq), and then you can read the whole thing when you're actually gearing up toward using D for a major project.


It think the way they explain the licencing issues on these pages is nice, even if D's license might be more complicated:
http://www.python.org/
http://www.python.org/psf/license/

Yes, Python has a nice license.  So does Ruby.

D has the license that Walter has chosen.  He is the author, it is his right.

Perhaps you should look at GDC?  It's thoroughly licensed under the GPL.
 It's not quite as far along a DMD, since for one thing the author has
less time to devote to it, and for another whenever DMD makes a change,
GDC has to play catch-up.  It's also not as easy to install.  (It
requires a recompilation of GCC.)  It used to be a part of the Gentoo
repository, but that seems to have disappeared (i.e., the last time I
had Gentoo installed I looked for it to install and couldn't find it).

My suspicion is that part of Walter's code is proprietary to someone
else, and that he licensed the right to use it while writing his C++
compiler...but not the right to reveal it.  He hasn't ever said so, however.

Still, if you want a GPL licensed compiler for D, GDC is what you're looking for.  (If you want a MIT, BSD, or Artistic license, however, there isn't one.  You'll need to write it yourself.)

In article <e5a17l$i1k$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Tydr Schnubbis says...
>
[...]
>
>Too me it still sounds like you don't want me to use your software.  Or like you're covering your back so you can screw me badly and get away with it.  Like the sales contract for a second-hand car.
>
>That's the problem, I think.  Both your version and the dmd faq give me the inital impression that this is unsafe territory.  Or at least, that it might be.  Just the fact that reading the faq doesn't really clear the issue up completely is a danger sign for many, I imagine.
>

Why? This is not a rectorial question, what about it gives this impression?

>It's like the door is closed, and then you open it up just a little bit.
>  The first impression should be that it's wide open - come on and use D
>for whatever you like.  No slimey lawyers attached.  The restrictions that are actually there, seem more important than actually are.

How about if this is put at the top of the licence page:

"At a minimum, DMD and Phobos can be downloaded for your own use. You may use both without any restrictions with regards to the use or distribution of the programs developed with them."

>Most people are probably fed up with reading licences and trying to figure out if there's anything hidden between the lines, or not.  I think there should be a simple summary of the licence somewhere (outside the faq), and then you can read the whole thing when you're actually gearing up toward using D for a major project.
>

I hear you, I hate it when I run up against a 40 page licence. In this respect DMD is much better than a lot of stuff. It has one of the shorter licences I have ever run across (excluding the I-don't-care-what-you-do-with-this licence)