Walter Bright wrote:
> Hasan Aljudy wrote:
>> Well sure it's legally correct .. (or well, who knows, maybe not .. I'm not a lawyer), but that's exactly my point; why does it have to be hard to understand if it needs to be legally correct?
> 
> I'm not seeing what's hard to understand about it.

Maybe it's because I'm not a native English speaker .. but the phrase "identify any claims to intellectual property rights" never made any sense to me.

Walter Bright wrote:
> Hasan Aljudy wrote:
>> Well sure it's legally correct .. (or well, who knows, maybe not .. I'm not a lawyer), but that's exactly my point; why does it have to be hard to understand if it needs to be legally correct?
> 
> I'm not seeing what's hard to understand about it.

I'm not a native english speaker as well and I didn't get it right as well. Over the weekend, I had asked some (non native speakers as well) people, if they had a look at D and they said that they didn't, because they thought, that the intention of this paragraph was exactly the oposite: that by using D one would be Walters slave forever :-)
After rereading it, I thought, it would mean that, whenever I thought that I would have a claim to any parts of D, I had to speak up immediatelly (and not wait until there is some money in it).
So, basicly, yes, somehow, the sentence is hard to understand (for a non native speaker)

Walter Bright schrieb:
> Hasan Aljudy wrote:
>> Well sure it's legally correct .. (or well, who knows, maybe not .. I'm not a lawyer), but that's exactly my point; why does it have to be hard to understand if it needs to be legally correct?
> 
> I'm not seeing what's hard to understand about it.

It is not as friendly as its semantics.
At least for non native speakers it could leed to false impressions.
I would also favor in transforming it into something more understandeable.

thanks
Jakob

Stephan Diehl wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> Hasan Aljudy wrote:
>>> Well sure it's legally correct .. (or well, who knows, maybe not .. I'm not a lawyer), but that's exactly my point; why does it have to be hard to understand if it needs to be legally correct?
>>
>> I'm not seeing what's hard to understand about it.
> 
> I'm not a native english speaker as well and I didn't get it right as well. Over the weekend, I had asked some (non native speakers as well) people, if they had a look at D and they said that they didn't, because they thought, that the intention of this paragraph was exactly the oposite: that by using D one would be Walters slave forever :-)
> After rereading it, I thought, it would mean that, whenever I thought that I would have a claim to any parts of D, I had to speak up immediatelly (and not wait until there is some money in it).
> So, basicly, yes, somehow, the sentence is hard to understand (for a non native speaker)

My first impression when I read it was (besides confusion) that it means if I find anyone (falsely) claiming that he has intellectual rights over D, I must report him over!!

Hasan Aljudy escribió:
> 
> 
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> Hasan Aljudy wrote:
>>> Well sure it's legally correct .. (or well, who knows, maybe not .. I'm not a lawyer), but that's exactly my point; why does it have to be hard to understand if it needs to be legally correct?
>>
>> I'm not seeing what's hard to understand about it.
> 
> Maybe it's because I'm not a native English speaker .. but the phrase "identify any claims to intellectual property rights" never made any sense to me.

Same here, so I'm glad someone explained that.

-- 
Carlos Santander Bernal

Jakob Praher wrote:
> Walter Bright schrieb:
>> Hasan Aljudy wrote:
>>> Well sure it's legally correct .. (or well, who knows, maybe not .. I'm not a lawyer), but that's exactly my point; why does it have to be hard to understand if it needs to be legally correct?
>>
>> I'm not seeing what's hard to understand about it.
> 
> It is not as friendly as its semantics.
> At least for non native speakers it could leed to false impressions.
> I would also favor in transforming it into something more understandeable.
> 
> thanks
> Jakob

It would be nice if there was something like, it big letters:

Code and binary outputs produced from DMD (the d compiler) and linker are free to use for everyone however they see fit (individual users, students, universities and companies ect...).  This means no payment is required for use of DMD.  Both DMD source code and binary outputs may be sold or put under any license.

D wishes to proflirate earth and the planets beyond, let us know if any legal issues are holding you back. Email: legal@Digitalmars.com

Something like that anyways.  We don't want people turned away simply because of legal mumbo.  (I am an English speaker, and that phase confused me for a little bit as well).

-Joel

PS

[OT] I just went to Chris Hecker's talk on "animating creatures you've never seen".  His talk was awesome!!! So was his apology :)  Spore may be the best game ever made (well second to star-trek online of course :0) )  Still I've gotta play it first when it finally comes out :)