www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - The dmd compiler license

reply hasen <hasan.aljudy gmail.com> writes:
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.
Jun 23 2009
next sibling parent reply "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
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
Jun 23 2009
next sibling parent "Robert Jacques" <sandford jhu.edu> writes:
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)
Jun 23 2009
prev sibling parent hasen <hasan.aljudy gmail.com> writes:
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.
Jun 24 2009
prev sibling parent reply Michiel Helvensteijn <m.helvensteijn.remove gmail.com> writes:
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
Jun 23 2009
parent reply Daniel Keep <daniel.keep.lists gmail.com> writes:
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.
Jun 23 2009
parent reply Michiel Helvensteijn <m.helvensteijn.remove gmail.com> writes:
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
Jun 24 2009
parent reply Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:
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.
Jun 24 2009
next sibling parent Don <nospam nospam.com> writes:
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?
Jun 25 2009
prev sibling parent reply hasen <hasan.aljudy gmail.com> writes:
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)?
Jun 25 2009
parent reply Tim Matthews <tim.matthews7 gmail.com> writes:
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
Jun 25 2009
parent reply hasen <hasan.aljudy gmail.com> writes:
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.
Jun 25 2009
parent reply Tim Matthews <tim.matthews7 gmail.com> writes:
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.
Jun 25 2009
parent reply hasen <hasan.aljudy gmail.com> writes:
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?
Jun 25 2009
parent Tim Matthews <tim.matthews7 gmail.com> writes:
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.
Jun 25 2009