Manfred Nowak wrote:

> Sigbjørn Lund Olsen wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>>without making criminals of anyone who does.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Is it a criminal act in your country to not follow restrictions that are
> imposed on a product?
> 
> So long.

It tends to be in most countries. For example, my Windows 2k license says I'm not allowed to distribute copies of it. And the GPL says I can't modify without disclosing the source of the modified product. Just to name two examples. A copyright holder controls all rights of all users, except 'fair use'. Do anything else, and yes, you are technically breaking the law. Even if the copyright holder doesn't mind.

Cheers,
Sigbjørn Lund Olsen

Ilya Minkov wrote:

[...]
> if someone breaks the license, the license is automatically terminated.

Not confirmed for the license in question here. And superfluous anyway, because the termination of a license would only prevent further development of programs, but would not influence already created programs.


[...]
> as long as and if at all Walter cares.

Slightly wrong. If he does not care for some time, it could be for him like having not written it at all, because he may not be allowed to act inconsistent.

[...]
> Example - copy protected "audio" CDs.

That is not a single product, but a category of products. As far as I know in Germany it is now legal to copy even copy protected CDs for private usage, where private is even then, when forwarding a copy as a gift to a relative. In former Eastern Germany Software was a free good anyway.

So long.

Sigbjørn Lund Olsen wrote:

[...]
> Do anything else, and yes, you are technically breaking the law.
[...]

Breaking a law, if there is one, is not necessarily a crime.

So long.

Ilya Minkov wrote:
> Manfred Nowak schrieb:
> 
>>> without making criminals of anyone who does.
>>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Is it a criminal act in your country to not follow restrictions that are
>> imposed on a product?
> 
> 
> I would say the problem is, if someone breaks the license, the license is automatically terminated. That means: to use DM tools, you agree to the license. If you make some mission-critical software with it, the license terminates and you may not use DM tools AT ALL. Point. I cannot really say with my minor knowledge of right, what happens if you continue to use DM tools. I'm pretty much sure it cannot be considered a crime, but can be prosecuted civically, as long as and if at all Walter cares. I think making criminals is this sense is not that unusual. Example - copy protected "audio" CDs. I buy them, then i (illegally!) rip them to load them on my own personal MP3 player, and also copy them so that they would play without nasty clicks in my old Hi-Fi CD player. I'm pretty much sure it's illegal but legitimate, and i hope that no side would be interested in prosecution.

Audio copying is generally a much more 'open' legal field than license agreements, which are legally binding agreements between a customer and a manufacturer, generally to the letter, unless overridden by local legislation.

You generally don't get license agreements with your audio CD, the usage rights you have are implied when you buy the product, and it is up to local legislation to determine what your rights are. For example, in Norway, it was legal to download copy-protected audio (that you did not *own* yourself - major point) onto your PC untill the 1st of january this year. It was only illegal to distribute audio without permission untill that point.

Cheers,
Sigbjørn Lund Olsen

Manfred Nowak wrote:

> Sigbjørn Lund Olsen wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>>Do anything else, and yes, you are technically breaking the law.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Breaking a law, if there is one, is not necessarily a crime.
> 
> So long.

And crime is depressingly often legal.

So short :-)

Cheers,
Sigbjørn Lund Olsen

Sigbjørn Lund Olsen wrote:

> And crime is depressingly often legal.
[...]

And more depressingly, sometimes there is a crime where only a few think that it is.

For example:
A women aged thirty after years of waiting finally has given birth to a
triplet. This is made possible by artificial insemination carried out by a
specialist in Berlin. She and her husband are very glad about that.

So long.

In article <c2tgd1$2ov5$2@digitaldaemon.com>, Manfred Nowak says...
>
>Sigbjørn Lund Olsen wrote:
>
>[...]
>> Do anything else, and yes, you are technically breaking the law.
>[...]
>
>Breaking a law, if there is one, is not necessarily a crime.
>
>So long.
>
Please, what is the meaning of the word "is" here?

frodeau wrote:
> In article <c2tgd1$2ov5$2@digitaldaemon.com>, Manfred Nowak says...
> 
>>Sigbjørn Lund Olsen wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>>Do anything else, and yes, you are technically breaking the law.
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>Breaking a law, if there is one, is not necessarily a crime.
>>
>>So long.
>>
> 
> Please, what is the meaning of the word "is" here?
> 
> 

Breaking a law, if "a law exists", is not necessarily a crime.

Well, that's how I read it at any rate.

Cheers,
Sigbjørn Lund Olsen

"Sigbjørn Lund Olsen" <sigbjorn@lundolsen.net> wrote in message news:c2stop$1nsc$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Walter wrote:
> > Just thought I'd take this opportunity to point out that the DMD license does not allow using DMD to develop applications which, if they fail,
would
> > cause significant harm or property damage. This doesn't apply to some
other
> > implementation of the D language, just the Digital Mars compiler.
> Will that license restriction remain?

Yes - I'm just not willing to take on that liability. I don't trust the legal system to put such liability where it should be, on the application developer. But for the gnu version of D, the gnu license will apply instead.

> > I personally feel it is the total responsibility of the application developer of such apps to take on the liability for those apps, since
those
> > apps should be thoroughly tested, but lawyers being what they are, I
felt it
> > necessary to add such a clause.
> Liability isn't the issue, though. With that license restriction one would be doing something illegal merely to produce such a program using DMD.

My poor understanding of the law is that it would be a civil case, not a criminal one.

> Presumably you couldn't be held liable if you merely included a disclaimer pointing out that you cannot guarantee that the compiler will produce software that is safe for use in a high-risk 'realtime' appliance, without making criminals of anyone who does. But then again, you do live in a ridiculous country.

I think both the current copyright laws in the US and the trends in liability lawsuits have run off the rails of rationality and common sense. But I have no choice but to deal with them as they are.

(You might think that I, as a copyrighted software developer, would be all in favor of the DMCA, indefinite copyright protection extensions, jailing kids who share files, etc. But nope, I think the firms pushing for those things are cutting their own throats by turning customers into enemies. I believe in treating customers as my friends, which they are. There's no copy protection on the software, no registration, no product activation, no dongles, no nagging, no time bombs, no 'phone homes', no watermarks, no nothing. And the result is I have loyal customers/friends who go back 20 years, and the consistent high quality of the posters in this newsgroup is testament to that.)

In article <c4bddj$2pd3$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
>
>
>"Sigbjørn Lund Olsen" <sigbjorn@lundolsen.net> wrote in message news:c2stop$1nsc$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> Walter wrote:
>> > Just thought I'd take this opportunity to point out that the DMD license does not allow using DMD to develop applications which, if they fail,
>would
>> > cause significant harm or property damage. This doesn't apply to some
>other
>> > implementation of the D language, just the Digital Mars compiler.
>> Will that license restriction remain?
>
>Yes - I'm just not willing to take on that liability. I don't trust the legal system to put such liability where it should be, on the application developer. But for the gnu version of D, the gnu license will apply instead.
>
>> > I personally feel it is the total responsibility of the application developer of such apps to take on the liability for those apps, since
>those
>> > apps should be thoroughly tested, but lawyers being what they are, I
>felt it
>> > necessary to add such a clause.
>> Liability isn't the issue, though. With that license restriction one would be doing something illegal merely to produce such a program using DMD.
>
>My poor understanding of the law is that it would be a civil case, not a criminal one.
>
>> Presumably you couldn't be held liable if you merely included a disclaimer pointing out that you cannot guarantee that the compiler will produce software that is safe for use in a high-risk 'realtime' appliance, without making criminals of anyone who does. But then again, you do live in a ridiculous country.
>
>I think both the current copyright laws in the US and the trends in liability lawsuits have run off the rails of rationality and common sense. But I have no choice but to deal with them as they are.
>
>(You might think that I, as a copyrighted software developer, would be all in favor of the DMCA, indefinite copyright protection extensions, jailing kids who share files, etc. But nope, I think the firms pushing for those things are cutting their own throats by turning customers into enemies. I believe in treating customers as my friends, which they are. There's no copy protection on the software, no registration, no product activation, no dongles, no nagging, no time bombs, no 'phone homes', no watermarks, no nothing. And the result is I have loyal customers/friends who go back 20 years, and the consistent high quality of the posters in this newsgroup is testament to that.)
>
As to the above, my quick pickup on D when I came in contact a couple months ago is largely due to my very positive experience with the Zortech compiler 20 years ago.  May the force be with you.