Some mention of license problems got me thinking about this piece of standard Sun boilerplate:

"Nuclear, missile, chemical biological weapons or nuclear maritime end uses or end users, whether direct or indirect, are strictly prohibited."

Are we going to have that kind of restrictions on D, or will we be free to use it to guide weapons of mass destruction? :P

-- 
-PIB

--
"C++ also supports the notion of *friends*: cooperative classes that
are permitted to see each other's private parts." - Grady Booch

Paul Bonser wrote:
> Some mention of license problems got me thinking about this piece of standard Sun boilerplate:
> 
> "Nuclear, missile, chemical biological weapons or nuclear maritime end uses or end users, whether direct or indirect, are strictly prohibited."
> 
> Are we going to have that kind of restrictions on D, or will we be free to use it to guide weapons of mass destruction? :P
> 
The contexts I've usually seen that in is a disclaimer of responsibility for the results of using (this or that) product for (this or that) purpose.  I doubt that it would have any effect (IANAL), but supposedly the claim is implicitly "We aren't responsible if you use it that way, so you can't sue us, and neither can your victims."

Charles Hixson wrote:

>> Are we going to have that kind of restrictions on D, or will we be free to use it to guide weapons of mass destruction? :P
>>
> The contexts I've usually seen that in is a disclaimer of responsibility for the results of using (this or that) product for (this or that) purpose.  I doubt that it would have any effect (IANAL), but supposedly the claim is implicitly "We aren't responsible if you use it that way, so you can't sue us, and neither can your victims."

I think the D license's:
> Do not use this software for life critical applications, or applications
> that could cause significant harm or property damage.

Might cover long distance missiles :-)

--anders

In article <cu0q2s$a8v$1@digitaldaemon.com>,
>I think the D license's:
>> Do not use this software for life critical applications, or applications that could cause significant harm or property damage.
>
>Might cover long distance missiles :-)

Its interesting that you bring that up.   Walter may want to clarify that language becuase it would clearly put great organizations like NASA or ESA out of the loop... that is if its not changed after v1.0.

- EricAnderton at yahoo

"pragma" <pragma_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:cu0qpe$avq$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> In article <cu0q2s$a8v$1@digitaldaemon.com>,
> >I think the D license's:
> >> Do not use this software for life critical applications, or
applications
> >> that could cause significant harm or property damage.
> >
> >Might cover long distance missiles :-)
>
> Its interesting that you bring that up.   Walter may want to clarify that language becuase it would clearly put great organizations like NASA or ESA
out
> of the loop... that is if its not changed after v1.0.

I don't care for the liability. An organization could use it for such purposes, but only if they're willing to send me a signed statement assuming liability and indemnifying Digital Mars.

"pragma" <pragma_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:cu0qpe$avq$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> In article <cu0q2s$a8v$1@digitaldaemon.com>,
>>I think the D license's:
>>> Do not use this software for life critical applications, or
>>> applications
>>> that could cause significant harm or property damage.
>>
>>Might cover long distance missiles :-)
>
> Its interesting that you bring that up.   Walter may want to clarify
> that
> language becuase it would clearly put great organizations like NASA or
> ESA out
> of the loop... that is if its not changed after v1.0.

Guys, if we persist with the mechanism of no compile-time detection of return paths, and rely on the runtime exceptions, do we really think NASA would use D? Come on!

"Matthew" <admin@stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote in message news:cu15pb$jqf$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> "pragma" <pragma_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:cu0qpe$avq$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> In article <cu0q2s$a8v$1@digitaldaemon.com>,
>>>I think the D license's:
>>>> Do not use this software for life critical applications, or
>>>> applications
>>>> that could cause significant harm or property damage.
>>>
>>>Might cover long distance missiles :-)
>>
>> Its interesting that you bring that up.   Walter may want to clarify
>> that
>> language becuase it would clearly put great organizations like NASA
>> or ESA out
>> of the loop... that is if its not changed after v1.0.
>
> Guys, if we persist with the mechanism of no compile-time detection of return paths

"and switch cases"

>, and rely on the runtime exceptions, do we really think NASA would use D? Come on!

>> Guys, if we persist with the mechanism of no compile-time detection of
>> return paths
>
> "and switch cases"
>
>> , and rely on the runtime exceptions, do we really think NASA would use
>> D? Come on!
>

Would you fly to mars in debug mode?

Vathix wrote:
>>> Guys, if we persist with the mechanism of no compile-time detection of
>>> return paths
>>
>>
>> "and switch cases"
>>
>>> , and rely on the runtime exceptions, do we really think NASA would use
>>> D? Come on!
>>
>>
> 
> Would you fly to mars in debug mode?

Maybe if there were a debugger available, and one could single step. ;-)

"Vathix" <vathix@dprogramming.com> wrote in message news:opslo861ihkcck4r@esi...
> >> Guys, if we persist with the mechanism of no compile-time detection of return paths
> >
> > "and switch cases"
> >
> >> , and rely on the runtime exceptions, do we really think NASA would use D? Come on!
> >
>
> Would you fly to mars in debug mode?

If it was critical software, yes, I'd run it with all the debugging checks turned on.