Greetings to all !

I am evaluating D language for my next project (and immediatly loved it),  but went to a screetching halt on the following licence term:

"You agree to defend, indemnify and hold Digital Mars and Symantec, its subsidiaries, affiliates, directors, officers, employees and agents harmless from all claims or demands made against them (and any related losses, damages, expenses and costs) arising out of your use of the Software."

I feel the statement "arising out of your use" is too broad in scope, and ecompassing even the _legitimate_ use of the compiler.

For example let's say that I wrote an antivirus in D, and come to be a good product; if Symantec lose some market share of their similar product, since the product was made "out of my use of the Software", do I have to "indemnify" them?

The clause apparently cover even the demands from an unrelated third party,
simply because "arise out of my use" of the software; let's say that I
made a security network tool, and discovered some vulnerabilities in
Symantec (or any affiliates) products. Let's say that they had many loss due
to imdenification requested by their customer, or simply by bad review in
press; do I have to refound they under that clause?

The licence term apply even to "subsidiaries" and"affiliates", which can be companies that are in my businnes (but not the some businnes of Digital Mars or Symantec) and obviously my competitor. With above clause they have a weapon against me.

I am pretty sure the licence term intended to protect from over-responsabilities, but ended to say a very different thing.

Thank you for your time.

That is a very common clause.  The idea, as far as I understand, is that if the compiler were to break - and your client were to sue you because of this - you can't sue down the chain.

From the same directory, readme.txt:

"The optimizer and code generator sources are
covered under a separate license, backendlicense.txt.

It does not apply to anything else distributed by Digital Mars,
including D compiler executables."

Theoretically, this could mean you are safe.  However, to be sure, I am an individual unlearned in the law, and therefore legally unable to give you anything anyone might construe as legal advice.

For questions such as these, your best bet is to ask your lawyer.

-[Unknown]


Chris wrote:
> Greetings to all !
> 
> I am evaluating D language for my next project (and immediatly loved
> it),  but went to a screetching halt on the following licence term:
> 
> "You agree to defend, indemnify and hold Digital Mars and Symantec, its
> subsidiaries, affiliates, directors, officers, employees and agents
> harmless from all claims or demands made against them (and any related
> losses, damages, expenses and costs) arising out of your use of the
> Software."
> 
> I feel the statement "arising out of your use" is too broad in scope, and
> ecompassing even the _legitimate_ use of the compiler.
> 
> For example let's say that I wrote an antivirus in D, and come to be a good
> product; if Symantec lose some market share of their similar product, since
> the product was made "out of my use of the Software", do I have to
> "indemnify" them?
> 
> The clause apparently cover even the demands from an unrelated third party,
> simply because "arise out of my use" of the software; let's say that I
> made a security network tool, and discovered some vulnerabilities in
> Symantec (or any affiliates) products. Let's say that they had many loss due
> to imdenification requested by their customer, or simply by bad review in
> press; do I have to refound they under that clause?
> 
> The licence term apply even to "subsidiaries" and"affiliates", which can be
> companies that are in my businnes (but not the some businnes of Digital Mars
> or Symantec) and obviously my competitor. With above clause they have a
> weapon against me.
> 
> I am pretty sure the licence term intended to protect from
> over-responsabilities, but ended to say a very different thing.
> 
> Thank you for your time. 
> 
> 

Chris wrote:
> Greetings to all !
> 
> I am evaluating D language for my next project (and immediatly loved
> it),  but went to a screetching halt on the following licence term:
> 
> "You agree to defend, indemnify and hold Digital Mars and Symantec, its
> subsidiaries, affiliates, directors, officers, employees and agents
> harmless from all claims or demands made against them (and any related
> losses, damages, expenses and costs) arising out of your use of the
> Software."
> 
> I feel the statement "arising out of your use" is too broad in scope, and
> ecompassing even the _legitimate_ use of the compiler.
> 
> For example let's say that I wrote an antivirus in D, and come to be a good
> product; if Symantec lose some market share of their similar product, since
> the product was made "out of my use of the Software", do I have to
> "indemnify" them?

I believe this clause is simply the one in most licenses that protects the creator of the product from responsibility if their product causes harm.  From the dictionary definition of "indemnify" I'd choose the first entry: "to secure against hurt, loss, or damage."  Basically, if someone sues you because your D app does something horrible, you don't have the right to turn around and sue Digital Mars or Synamtec in turn.  For example, in the BSD license:

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php

This clause is present:

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" . . . IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY . . . DAMAGES . . . ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

"Unknown W. Brackets"
> That is a very common clause.  The idea, as far as I understand, is that if the compiler were to break - and your client were to sue you because of this - you can't sue down the chain.

I am familiar with the clause you are talking about (and I basically agree with it), but the D licence clause seems much different.

Infact it says that if someone (even unrelated to my businnes) caused
them pratically every type of "cost", I have to indemnify them (who
exactly?), simply because that cost "arose out" of my use (not misuse)
of the Software.
And note that the chain you are referring to, don't have to pass through me.

If a normal limitation of responsability was the intent, then the clause is a thousand times wide.

"Sean Kelly"
> Chris wrote:
>> "You agree to defend, indemnify and hold Digital Mars and Symantec, its subsidiaries, affiliates, directors, officers, employees and agents harmless from all claims or demands made against them (and any related losses, damages, expenses and costs) arising out of your use of the Software."
>>
>> I feel the statement "arising out of your use" is too broad in scope, and ecompassing even the _legitimate_ use of the compiler.
>
> I believe this clause is simply the one in most licenses that protects the creator of the product from responsibility if their product causes harm. From the dictionary definition of "indemnify" I'd choose the first entry: "to secure against hurt, loss, or damage."  Basically, if someone sues you because your D app does something horrible, you don't have the right to turn around and sue Digital Mars or Synamtec in turn.

This is the normal clause we can find everywhere.
By contrast, the D licence clause says if someone else sued THEM,
then I have to give them some money; the only requisite is that
the cause is "my use" of the software.

I have to resort to dictionary too since I am not very good at English, and found: http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=indemnify&search=search

"1. To compensate for damage or loss sustained, expense incurred"

So indemnify the cost shall mean that I have to pay cash (and I don't see otherwise how can I indemnify them against third party).

>  For example, in the BSD license:
>
> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php
>
> This clause is present:
>
> THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" . . . IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY . . . DAMAGES . . . ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

Not the some thing: it says that I can't sue them.
It doesn't say that I have to refund someone.

Chris wrote:
> "Sean Kelly"
>> Chris wrote:
>>> "You agree to defend, indemnify and hold Digital Mars and Symantec, its
>>> subsidiaries, affiliates, directors, officers, employees and agents
>>> harmless from all claims or demands made against them (and any related
>>> losses, damages, expenses and costs) arising out of your use of the
>>> Software."
>>>
>>> I feel the statement "arising out of your use" is too broad in scope, and
>>> ecompassing even the _legitimate_ use of the compiler.
>> I believe this clause is simply the one in most licenses that protects the
>> creator of the product from responsibility if their product causes harm.
>> From the dictionary definition of "indemnify" I'd choose the first entry:
>> "to secure against hurt, loss, or damage."  Basically, if someone sues you
>> because your D app does something horrible, you don't have the right to
>> turn around and sue Digital Mars or Synamtec in turn.
> 
> This is the normal clause we can find everywhere.
> By contrast, the D licence clause says if someone else sued THEM,
> then I have to give them some money; the only requisite is that
> the cause is "my use" of the software.
> 
> I have to resort to dictionary too since I am not very good at English,
> and found:
> http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=indemnify&search=search
> 
> "1. To compensate for damage or loss sustained, expense incurred"
> 
> So indemnify the cost shall mean that I have to pay cash (and I
> don't see otherwise how can I indemnify them against third party).

The way I interpret it is it has to be damages that can be directly traced to your use of the software. In other words, if you write an app using dmd that deletes someone's hard disk, you cannot hold Symantec responsible. If someone else writes an app using dmd that deletes a hard disk, you are not indemnifying Symantec for that.

I.e. you are responsible for the consequences of your use of dmd, not Symantec.

Chris wrote:
> Greetings to all !
> 
> I am evaluating D language for my next project (and immediatly loved
> it),  but went to a screetching halt on the following licence term:
> 
> "You agree to defend, indemnify and hold Digital Mars and Symantec, its
> subsidiaries, affiliates, directors, officers, employees and agents
> harmless from all claims or demands made against them (and any related
> losses, damages, expenses and costs) arising out of your use of the
> Software."
> 
> I feel the statement "arising out of your use" is too broad in scope, and
> ecompassing even the _legitimate_ use of the compiler.
> 
> For example let's say that I wrote an antivirus in D, and come to be a good
> product; if Symantec lose some market share of their similar product, since
> the product was made "out of my use of the Software", do I have to
> "indemnify" them?

In this context, "indemnify" means "agree never to hold responsible". This means that you and your customers can't sue Symantec or Digital Mars if your antivirus software kills their firstborn children due to a bug in DMD.

If you use DMD to create an antivirus application that totally destroys Symantec and they go bankrupt, you owe them nothing.

Christopher Wright wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>> Greetings to all !
>>
>> I am evaluating D language for my next project (and immediatly loved
>> it),  but went to a screetching halt on the following licence term:
>>
>> "You agree to defend, indemnify and hold Digital Mars and Symantec, its
>> subsidiaries, affiliates, directors, officers, employees and agents
>> harmless from all claims or demands made against them (and any related
>> losses, damages, expenses and costs) arising out of your use of the
>> Software."
>>
>> I feel the statement "arising out of your use" is too broad in scope, and
>> ecompassing even the _legitimate_ use of the compiler.
>>
>> For example let's say that I wrote an antivirus in D, and come to be a good
>> product; if Symantec lose some market share of their similar product, since
>> the product was made "out of my use of the Software", do I have to
>> "indemnify" them?
> 
> In this context, "indemnify" means "agree never to hold responsible". This means that you and your customers can't sue Symantec or Digital Mars if your antivirus software kills their firstborn children due to a bug in DMD.


> If you use DMD to create an antivirus application that totally destroys Symantec and they go bankrupt, you owe them nothing.

Errr, /they/ owe you nothing. But they can sue you.

(Not that suing over losing market share to a competitor were grounds for suing, but that's not the issue. This indemnification is here so nobody can sue /them/, but it doesn't affect their suing others or you.)


More interesting would be if Symantec licensed your D software and it caused them to go bankrupt. They probably would sue you, but "not related to the use of D, etc.", instead they'd sue for "your choices of algorithm" or "your sloppy software practices", or something else.

From my limited legal understanding, which being so limited can only be considered an unlearned opinion, I think that the clause "arising out of your use of the Software" limits the entire paragraph.

Obviously, if I were to write a malicious virus in D, no one ought to sue Walter.  They should sue me, right?  I mean, that's what I would think.

If someone did sue Walter, he might sue me, for the damages I did to him and D, by using it to write a virus.  Unless he just felt like being a nice guy.

Of course, all this banter is really just hypothesizing and talking about personal, mostly irrelevant, opinions.  Again, you need to contact and discuss this issue with a lawyer who has passed through your region's licensing requirements to be able to properly (and legally) advise you on this matter.

-[Unknown]


Chris wrote:
> "Unknown W. Brackets"
>> That is a very common clause.  The idea, as far as I understand, is that
>> if the compiler were to break - and your client were to sue you because of
>> this - you can't sue down the chain.
> 
> I am familiar with the clause you are talking about (and I basically agree
> with it), but the D licence clause seems much different.
> 
> Infact it says that if someone (even unrelated to my businnes) caused
> them pratically every type of "cost", I have to indemnify them (who
> exactly?), simply because that cost "arose out" of my use (not misuse)
> of the Software.
> And note that the chain you are referring to, don't have to pass through me.
> 
> If a normal limitation of responsability was the intent, then the clause is
> a thousand times wide. 
> 
> 

Chris Wrote:

> You agree to indemnify Symantec from all claims or demands

Note the use of "from" preposition. Indemnify from = defend, indemnify for = compensate.