|
Archives
D Programming
digitalmars.D
digitalmars.D.bugs
digitalmars.D.dtl
digitalmars.D.ide
digitalmars.D.dwt
digitalmars.D.announce
digitalmars.D.learn
digitalmars.D.debugger
D.gnu
D
C/C++ Programming
c++
c++.announce
c++.atl
c++.beta
c++.chat
c++.command-line
c++.dos
c++.dos.16-bits
c++.dos.32-bits
c++.idde
c++.mfc
c++.rtl
c++.stl
c++.stl.hp
c++.stl.port
c++.stl.sgi
c++.stlsoft
c++.windows
c++.windows.16-bits
c++.windows.32-bits
c++.wxwindows
digitalmars.empire
digitalmars.DMDScript
electronics
|
digitalmars.D - The dmd compiler license
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
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.
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
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.
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)?
hasen wrote:
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/ ?
Some of this info is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Mars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symantec#Founding
It really shouldn't be a problem. Backend is not free(dom) but frontend
is gpl so can be used with any other backend no problem as long as the
other backend respect the frontend's gpl. Free enough frontend. How free
do you need in that truely open source statement?
How feasibly would it be to rewrite that portion as free software
Very and is exactly what ldc is http://dsource.org/projects/ldc
Tim Matthews wrote:
hasen wrote:
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/ ?
Some of this info is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Mars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symantec#Founding
It really shouldn't be a problem. Backend is not free(dom) but frontend
is gpl so can be used with any other backend no problem as long as the
other backend respect the frontend's gpl. Free enough frontend. How free
do you need in that truely open source statement?
How feasibly would it be to rewrite that portion as free software
Very and is exactly what ldc is http://dsource.org/projects/ldc
OK, there is/was also GDC, but I heard it's kinda died.
That's not my point though.
I think that the official/reference implementation needs to be
completely open-source.
hasen wrote:
That's not my point though.
I think that the official/reference implementation needs to be
completely open-source.
Because I'm bored I am actually replying to this topic. First how "open"
do you like your source?
1. Open as in all code available? (This is where dmd is now)
2. Open as in gpl? Can derive more work from it if the source code is
still available in the derived work. (This is where dmd front end is.
Possible to re write backend and that is what ldc has done)
3. Open as in bsd license? Can derive work from it close up the new
stuff and sell it. (llvm is actually ncsa license and dang is an attempt
to make a D parser for it in the similar style to what clang did for C/C++)
Once you have decided on your license you can then proceed to choosing
what parts of what project to re write or maybe you just like starting
from scratch anyway.
Finally get the project going stable for a long time then ask for it to
be considered as the reference implementation. You can't just drop dmd's
existence / declare no such reference implementation while everyone runs
around hurrying to build the completely open one.
Tim Matthews wrote:
hasen wrote:
That's not my point though.
I think that the official/reference implementation needs to be
completely open-source.
Because I'm bored I am actually replying to this topic. First how "open"
do you like your source?
1. Open as in all code available? (This is where dmd is now)
2. Open as in gpl? Can derive more work from it if the source code is
still available in the derived work. (This is where dmd front end is.
Possible to re write backend and that is what ldc has done)
3. Open as in bsd license? Can derive work from it close up the new
stuff and sell it. (llvm is actually ncsa license and dang is an attempt
to make a D parser for it in the similar style to what clang did for C/C++)
Once you have decided on your license you can then proceed to choosing
what parts of what project to re write or maybe you just like starting
from scratch anyway.
Finally get the project going stable for a long time then ask for it to
be considered as the reference implementation. You can't just drop dmd's
existence / declare no such reference implementation while everyone runs
around hurrying to build the completely open one.
Who said anything about dropping dmd?
hasen wrote:
Who said anything about dropping dmd?
What are you doing then? I need something to argue about but this feels
like a guessing game. Whats your next move.
|
|
C & C++
DMDScript
hasen <hasan.aljudy gmail.com> 