I don't know if this has been brought up before, but today I just happened to look at the text of the license that comes with dmd,

> The Software is not generally available software. It has not undergone
> testing and may contain errors. The Software was not designed to operate
> after December 31, 1999. It may be incomplete and it may not function
> properly. No support or maintenance is provided with this Software. Do
> not install or distribute the Software if
> you are not accustomed to using or distributing experimental software.
> Do not use this software for life critical applications, or applications
> that could cause significant harm or property damage.

Well, with this kind of text, how can we *ever* expect D to be adopted?!

It says right there: don't touch me, I'm dangerous.

I'm talking specifically about this line right here:

> Do not install or distribute the Software if you are not accustomed
> to using or distributing experimental software.

On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 04:02:37AM -0600, hasen wrote:
> Well, with this kind of text, how can we *ever* expect D to be adopted?!

Virtually ALL licenses basically say the same thing. It is just legal CYA stuff.

From the GPL, for example:
 THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU.

(And it is surrounded by several lines of basically screaming
  "NOT MY PROBLEM IF IT SUCKS").


It's nothing to get worked up about.

-- 
Adam D. Ruppe
http://arsdnet.net

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:27:31 -0400, Adam D. Ruppe <destructionator@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 04:02:37AM -0600, hasen wrote:
>> Well, with this kind of text, how can we *ever* expect D to be adopted?!
>
> Virtually ALL licenses basically say the same thing. It is just legal CYA
> stuff.
>
> From the GPL, for example:
>  THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU.
>
> (And it is surrounded by several lines of basically screaming
>   "NOT MY PROBLEM IF IT SUCKS").
>
>
> It's nothing to get worked up about.
>

Also, the licence refers to DMD itself, not software generated by DMD (i.e. D programs)

hasen wrote:

> Well, with this kind of text, how can we *ever* expect D to be adopted?!
> 
> It says right there: don't touch me, I'm dangerous.
> 
> I'm talking specifically about this line right here:
> 
>> Do not install or distribute the Software if you are not accustomed to using or distributing experimental software.

I'd be much more worried about these lines:

>> It has not undergone testing

>> The Software was not designed to operate after December 31, 1999.

>> No support or maintenance is provided with this Software.

Those are pretty direct statements about the state of the compiler. The rest is pretty vague; standard disclaimer stuff.

-- 
Michiel Helvensteijn

Michiel Helvensteijn wrote:
> I'd be much more worried about these lines:
> 
>>> It has not undergone testing

Walter has a test suite for DMD, and there's the huge one on (I think)
puremagic.

>>> The Software was not designed to operate after December 31, 1999.

OH NO!  All our programs will stop compiling on Jan 1 2000... wait...

>>> No support or maintenance is provided with this Software.

I think the existence of these forums and the bugtracker says otherwise.

> Those are pretty direct statements about the state of the compiler. The rest is pretty vague; standard disclaimer stuff.

No, I think they are also of a "you can't sue me if it asplodes" nature.

Daniel Keep wrote:

> Walter has a test suite for DMD, and there's the huge one on (I think)
> puremagic.
> 
> OH NO!  All our programs will stop compiling on Jan 1 2000... wait...
> 
> I think the existence of these forums and the bugtracker says otherwise.

Relax. I'm not saying that those things are true, but they ARE in the license. And I'm saying that if everything in that license were true, those are the lines I'd worry about.

You've got to admit, it's a pretty strange license.

>> Those are pretty direct statements about the state of the compiler. The rest is pretty vague; standard disclaimer stuff.
> 
> No, I think they are also of a "you can't sue me if it asplodes" nature.

They call that a disclaimer.

-- 
Michiel Helvensteijn

Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 04:02:37AM -0600, hasen wrote:
>> Well, with this kind of text, how can we *ever* expect D to be adopted?!
> 
> Virtually ALL licenses basically say the same thing. It is just legal CYA
> stuff.
> 
> From the GPL, for example:
>  THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU.
> 
> (And it is surrounded by several lines of basically screaming
>   "NOT MY PROBLEM IF IT SUCKS").
> 
> 
> It's nothing to get worked up about.
> 

As Michiel pointed out (thanks, btw), it's not just the disclaimer part, it's the other parts too.

Usually disclaimers say something like: this was developed with the hope of being useful, but there's no guarantee at all. I'm giving it to you for free so if anything goes wrong don't sue me. Though the "DONT SUE ME" part is all caps and legalese, it's pretty obvious that it's just a standard disclaimer stuff.

Where as this one (dmd's license) plainly says: look, I'm a dangerous piece of software, don't come near me if you're not wearing your hazard suit. I'll probably explode in your face.

- not designed to run after 31 december 1999 (wtf?)
- not undergone testing (wtf?)
- very experimental
- incomplete
- probably doesn't work (wtf?)
- not supported
- don't try it unless you know what you're doing

This, supposedly, is the "stable" D1 compiler.

Michiel Helvensteijn wrote:
> Daniel Keep wrote:
> 
>> Walter has a test suite for DMD, and there's the huge one on (I think)
>> puremagic.
>>
>> OH NO!  All our programs will stop compiling on Jan 1 2000... wait...
>>
>> I think the existence of these forums and the bugtracker says otherwise.
> 
> Relax. I'm not saying that those things are true, but they ARE in the
> license. And I'm saying that if everything in that license were true, those
> are the lines I'd worry about.
> 
> You've got to admit, it's a pretty strange license.
> 

IIRC, Walter said that's the legacy Symantec license and he can't change it.

Mike Parker wrote:
> Michiel Helvensteijn wrote:
>> Daniel Keep wrote:
>>
>>> Walter has a test suite for DMD, and there's the huge one on (I think)
>>> puremagic.
>>>
>>> OH NO!  All our programs will stop compiling on Jan 1 2000... wait...
>>>
>>> I think the existence of these forums and the bugtracker says otherwise.
>>
>> Relax. I'm not saying that those things are true, but they ARE in the
>> license. And I'm saying that if everything in that license were true, those
>> are the lines I'd worry about.
>>
>> You've got to admit, it's a pretty strange license.
>>
> 
> IIRC, Walter said that's the legacy Symantec license and he can't change it.
Yes. I wonder if he could add a statement to that effect?

Mike Parker wrote:
> Michiel Helvensteijn wrote:
>> Daniel Keep wrote:
>>
>>> Walter has a test suite for DMD, and there's the huge one on (I think)
>>> puremagic.
>>>
>>> OH NO!  All our programs will stop compiling on Jan 1 2000... wait...
>>>
>>> I think the existence of these forums and the bugtracker says otherwise.
>>
>> Relax. I'm not saying that those things are true, but they ARE in the
>> license. And I'm saying that if everything in that license were true, those
>> are the lines I'd worry about.
>>
>> You've got to admit, it's a pretty strange license.
>>
> 
> IIRC, Walter said that's the legacy Symantec license and he can't change it.

Who is this Symantec entity that's preventing D from being truely open source and forcing Walter to put crap in the license?

Are they the same Symantec at http://www.symantec.com/ ?

Anyway, what portions of the backend are from Symantec?

How feasibly would it be to rewrite that portion as free software (in the GNU sense)?