http://www.flowerplatform.com/files/flower.zip http://www.flowerplatform.com/files/flower_older.zip http://www.flowerplatform.com/files/thirdparty.zip

flower.zip is the latest work in progress version using ddl (thanks to h3hetic)

flower_older.zip is few days older back up without ddl, but unlike it is working and usable

thirdparty.zip is dwt,ddl and whatever else is need to compile

this is absolutely everything, i just zipped the folders. i haven't been working on this one for long time now and don't plan to resume it (reasons: see my post about the new final scope blah blah stuff in the announce newsgroup)
the debugger is working and the ui is very advanced, although incomplete. compiles with dmd 1.014 and phobos

LICENSE: use without restrictions at your own risk and responsibility unless this use is resulting (directly or indirectly) harm to any sentient being

bobef wrote:
> LICENSE: use without restrictions at your own risk and responsibility unless this use is resulting (directly or indirectly) harm to any sentient being

Gad I hate being the licensing nazi. Wait, no ... what's that thing that's like hate but is the opposite ...

Aside from the poor grammar of the license, it's also fairly nonsensical.

If I modify your code, and then give it to a friend of mine, and they modify it, and then they give it to somebody else, and then their third cousin twice removed borrows their computer and sends the code to their great-grand-niece's lesbian life partner's dog's groomer's husband, and he works for NASA and decides to give it to his astronaut friend who runs it while in space, and it hangs and causes the life support systems to fail temporarily, which makes somebody's breathing a bit awkward for a minute, I've just violated your license while not even touching your software. You've mixed what should be a liability disclaimer in as a (fairly ridiculous) licensing term.

Oh right, and aside from that, you technically haven't allowed redistribution. Whether that's intentional or not, Idonno.


I know that people don't like the legalese involved in licenses, but as it turns out, rolling your own non-legalese license is always a terrible solution. The fact is that these "spirit-of-the-license" licenses can and have been turned against people. There is, however, a very simple solution: A huge pile of well-accepted licenses which do what they're supposed to and actually make sense.

If you're aiming for the "all-rights" license, here's the unconditional MIT license:

Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holders>

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN
THE SOFTWARE.

 - Gregor Richards

Gregor Richards wrote

> IN NO EVENT SHALL

I already pointed out, that this might be very dangerous for international usage.

In Germany for example this clause is illegal, with the result that the author is liable for _all_ and _everything_ which might be charged to his software.

There might be other states, that handle this similar.

-manfred

Gregor Richards wrote:
> bobef wrote:
>> LICENSE: use without restrictions at your own risk and responsibility unless this use is resulting (directly or indirectly) harm to any sentient being
> 
> Gad I hate being the licensing nazi. Wait, no ... what's that thing that's like hate but is the opposite ...
> 
> Aside from the poor grammar of the license, it's also fairly nonsensical.
> 

That sentence could also be interpreted to mean that use of the software is *not* "at your own risk" if you're using the software to harm somebody.  So it's at your own risk unless you use it as a gun, and then it's at bobef's risk?

--bb

Gregor Richards Wrote:

> Aside from the poor grammar of the license, it's also fairly nonsensical.
> 
> If I modify your code, and then give it to a friend of mine, and they modify it, and then they give it to somebody else, and then their third cousin twice removed borrows their computer and sends the code to their great-grand-niece's lesbian life partner's dog's groomer's husband, and he works for NASA and decides to give it to his astronaut friend who runs it while in space, and it hangs and causes the life support systems to fail temporarily, which makes somebody's breathing a bit awkward for a minute, I've just violated your license while not even touching your software.

If you think this is going to be the case, don't give it to your friend. As simple as that ;)

bobef wrote:
> Gregor Richards Wrote:
> 
>> Aside from the poor grammar of the license, it's also fairly nonsensical.
>>
>> If I modify your code, and then give it to a friend of mine, and they modify it, and then they give it to somebody else, and then their third cousin twice removed borrows their computer and sends the code to their great-grand-niece's lesbian life partner's dog's groomer's husband, and he works for NASA and decides to give it to his astronaut friend who runs it while in space, and it hangs and causes the life support systems to fail temporarily, which makes somebody's breathing a bit awkward for a minute, I've just violated your license while not even touching your software. 
> 
> If you think this is going to be the case, don't give it to your friend. As simple as that ;)

Wow, way to make an "open" license that's not open in the least, and then defend it with a smug, meaningless sentence.

"If you think this is going to be the case" means "unless you are psychic", because nobody can truly predict what is going to be done with something they give to a friend. No license which requires its users to be psychic ... hell, no such license even makes any effing sense.

 - Gregor Richards

== Quote from bobef (ads@aad.asd)'s article
> http://www.flowerplatform.com/files/flower.zip
> http://www.flowerplatform.com/files/flower_older.zip
> http://www.flowerplatform.com/files/thirdparty.zip
> flower.zip is the latest work in progress version using ddl (thanks
> to h3hetic)
>
> flower_older.zip is few days older back up without ddl, but unlike it is working and usable
>
> thirdparty.zip is dwt,ddl and whatever else is need to compile
>
> this is absolutely everything, i just zipped the folders. i haven't been working on this one for long time now and don't plan to resume it (reasons: see my post about the new final scope blah blah stuff in the announce newsgroup)

For those that aren't familiar with the "final scope blah blah stuff" topic, I guess the "reasons" that you hint at are containted in these posts:

http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D.announce&article_id=8681 http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D.announce&article_id=8686 http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D.announce&article_id=8688


> LICENSE: use without restrictions at your own risk and responsibility unless this use is resulting (directly or indirectly) harm to any sentient being

By the way, the flower may very well die on the vine with such a cryptic license. Does "sentient being" include insects? I want to make sure I'm covered in case I print out a couple of pages of code and my friend uses them to swat at flies. Of course, I guess my friend could also turn a page of code into a paper airline and poke someone in the eye, so I suppose it's hard for me to be sure that I don't violate the license.

jcc7 Wrote:

> 
> By the way, the flower may very well die on the vine with such a cryptic license.

From my point of view it is already dead. I posted it just because it have some good stuff in there that may be useful to someone. About you flies question - yes, I am pretty sure flies are sentient beings, but if there are few lines of my code on the page and few lines of your code then which code is the reason? Another question - is the code the reason for your friend to kill the fly or the paper, or maybe the reason is in your friend? Is there reason at all? Guys, lets skip the crap. If you find the code useful - use it for good. Or don't. I don't care really. Just don't use it to make a flies exterminating piece software or library with license that allows it to be used in flies exterminating software.

"bobef" <asd@asd.com> wrote in message news:f41pga$cmo$1@digitalmars.com...
>
> Guys, lets skip the crap.

Alright, then remove all the inane licensing crap from your code.

bobef wrote:
> jcc7 Wrote:
> 
>> By the way, the flower may very well die on the vine with such a cryptic license.
> 
> Guys, lets skip the crap. If you find the code useful - use it for good. Or don't. I don't care really. 

Considering that the crap (namely, the ridiculous and highly restrictive license) is coming from your end, I'd question who should be skipping said crap.

> Just don't use it to make a flies exterminating piece software or library with license that allows it to be used in flies exterminating software.

Broad categories of uses that this prevents (due to possible indirect damages):

 * Anything mechanical.
 * Anything which operates on a device which creates heat (like, oh, Idonno, a computer).
 * Anything capable of controlling periphery devices which could hypothetically be mechanical and/or create heat and/or have any form of radiation (heat, light, nuclear, whatever).
 * Anything which encourages the use of a keyboard, which a fly or other small insect could become trapped in inadvertantly.
 * Anything which exists in a physical universe with a timeline following basic laws of causality.

Oh right, and there's only one redistribution license that would be legal under yours. Here it is:

Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holders>

Permission is not granted, and is explicitly disallowed, regardless of fees or charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to use it in any manner, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software.

 - Gregor Richards