I'm little confused with DMD's license... I don't understand very well the limits...

I found this : http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/37364.html
and a license file in DMD folder with these lines :
"The Software is copyrighted and comes with a single user license,
and may not be redistributed. If you wish to obtain a redistribution license,
please contact Digital Mars."

I didn't find anything about license of DMD on the web page.

So my question are :
can we use DMD compiler to make commercial application ?
can we distribute commercial applications compiled with DMD without contact
Digital Mars for a license ?
what does "single user license,and may not be redistributed" mean ?
finally, what can't we do with DMD compiler?

Many questions... but I need to know what I can do and what I can't do.

Thanks !

On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 09:35:04PM +0000, GG wrote:
> can we use DMD compiler to make commercial application ?

Yes.

> can we distribute commercial applications compiled with DMD without contact Digital Mars for a license ?

Yes.

> what does "single user license,and may not be redistributed" mean ? finally, what can't we do with DMD compiler?

You can't distribute the DMD binary itself, nor the source to the back-end.

But, this doesn't apply to the program's output. So you can do whatever you want with exe's dmd makes by compiling your own code.

-- 
Adam D. Ruppe
http://arsdnet.net

Thanks Adam D. Ruppe !
It's clear now !

Maybe the web site could have a section talking about license because I know many people who don't use D and DMD because they are afraid about the commercial license.

GG

Hello GG,

> Thanks Adam D. Ruppe !
> It's clear now !
> Maybe the web site could have a section talking about license because
> I know many people who don't use D and DMD because they are afraid
> about the commercial license.
> 

I think that's a fairly standard clause for just about every compiler out there (with slight variations on what restrictions are implied), GCC will have something like that (GCC is under the GPL but it's output isn't) MS's compiler will have it (but it's buried in so much junk no body reads that far). I wonder if DMD is suffering because it has a  license that is both less than FOSS and short enough to read?



> GG
> 
-- 
... <IXOYE><

BCS wrote:

> Hello GG,
> 
>> Thanks Adam D. Ruppe !
>> It's clear now !
>> Maybe the web site could have a section talking about license because
>> I know many people who don't use D and DMD because they are afraid
>> about the commercial license.
>> 
> 
> I think that's a fairly standard clause for just about every compiler out there (with slight variations on what restrictions are implied), GCC will have something like that (GCC is under the GPL but it's output isn't) MS's compiler will have it (but it's buried in so much junk no body reads that far). I wonder if DMD is suffering because it has a  license that is both less than FOSS and short enough to read?
> 
> 
> 
>> GG
>> 

Apparently, but since the matter comes up so often, why not put a clarification on the website in addition to license. Something like the last two sentences of Adam D. Ruppe's post.

== Quote from Lutger (lutger.blijdestijn@gmail.com)'s article
> Apparently, but since the matter comes up so often, why not put a clarification on the website in addition to license. Something like the last two sentences of Adam D. Ruppe's post.

I'm agree with this !
Maybe some people was like me, I heard and read many things about the back-end DMD
and the front-end. And I think that it involves me to believe wrong things about
the license.

A clarification on the website could be useful and encourage the enterprises to program in D.

GG

On 2010-04-17 13:38:18 -0400, GG <ggcoding@gmail.com> said:

> A clarification on the website could be useful and encourage the enterprises to
> program in D.

A clarification as a small preamble to the license itself would be even better (if possible).

-- 
Michel Fortin
michel.fortin@michelf.com
http://michelf.com/