• Bill Baxter (13/13) Dec 19 2007 One thing that just keeps churning in back of my mind is "how does
• Sean Kelly (5/8) Dec 19 2007 If Walter were having trouble paying the bills, I imagine he'd be
• Bill Baxter (10/18) Dec 19 2007 As it is maybe, but what about the future?
• John Reimer (16/38) Dec 19 2007 I think he'll do fine, perhaps better in some ways without such wealthy
• dan (4/13) Dec 20 2007 My only major concern lies in that d isnt open source and is therefore b...
• Peter C. Chapin (9/12) Dec 20 2007 Is there any reason (I'm thinking legal, mostly) why someone else
• Frits van Bommel (18/31) Dec 20 2007 An independent D compiler isn't a problem. There are even several in the...
• Sean Kelly (5/34) Dec 20 2007 Frankly, it's a topic we never broached with Walter. We've simply been
• Dan (2/36) Dec 20 2007 Walter,make it gnu if u pass on. i dont trust anyone in particular to c...
• Bill Baxter (4/39) Dec 21 2007 (channeling Walter)
• John Reimer (7/50) Dec 21 2007 Hmm... is it? I thought that it wasn't unless all copyright is passed
• Bruce Adams (32/44) Dec 21 2007 That makes sense. The DMD front end is open source but not copylefted.
• Lutger (14/29) Dec 21 2007 No, it just means you promise not to sue DM over content of messages,
• dominik (3/5) Dec 20 2007 thanks for the laugh :)
• John Reimer (17/34) Dec 20 2007 Life insurance? Poor Walter. We're already talking about his demise. :(
• Bruce Adams (14/31) Dec 20 2007 My understanding was that the D language specification was open 'source'...

Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:

One thing that just keeps churning in back of my mind is "how does 
Walter do it?"  Given the frantic pace of updates he must be devoting 
almost all his time to D.  But D must generate next to no revenue.  And 
selling DMC or EUP CDs can't be a huge profit center these days, either. 
  I doubt the google ad words on the Digitalmars pages generate much 
revenue either.

On the one hand I know it's really none of my business how DigitalMars 
stays afloat, but for both current and potential D users, I think 
knowing whether D is sufficiently well-funded to stay in it for the 
long-haul *is* relevant.

I don't even really care how it's funded, but it would be nice to hear a 
reassuring "there's nothing to worry about" from someone in the know.

--bb

Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:

Bill Baxter wrote:
 
 I don't even really care how it's funded, but it would be nice to hear a 
 reassuring "there's nothing to worry about" from someone in the know.

If Walter were having trouble paying the bills, I imagine he'd be 
spending more time on paying work.  As it is, I believe he's in a 
situation where this isn't a concern.


Sean

Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:

Sean Kelly wrote:
 Bill Baxter wrote:
 I don't even really care how it's funded, but it would be nice to hear 
 a reassuring "there's nothing to worry about" from someone in the know.

 
 If Walter were having trouble paying the bills, I imagine he'd be 
 spending more time on paying work.  As it is, I believe he's in a 
 situation where this isn't a concern.

As it is maybe, but what about the future?
DigitalMars must not be rolling in dough, at least, or else Walter could 
hire some helpers rather than doing everything himself.

One thing that concerns me is that the big corporate benefactor that has 
swooped in to help other open source languages may never arrive on the 
scene for D.  But maybe the big corporate benefactors like Google and 
O'Reilly haven't been as important to the continued evolution and 
success of Python/Perl/Ruby as I'm thinking.

--bb

John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:

Bill Baxter wrote:
 Sean Kelly wrote:
 Bill Baxter wrote:
 I don't even really care how it's funded, but it would be nice to 
 hear a reassuring "there's nothing to worry about" from someone in 
 the know.

 If Walter were having trouble paying the bills, I imagine he'd be 
 spending more time on paying work.  As it is, I believe he's in a 
 situation where this isn't a concern.

 
 As it is maybe, but what about the future?
 DigitalMars must not be rolling in dough, at least, or else Walter could 
 hire some helpers rather than doing everything himself.
 
 One thing that concerns me is that the big corporate benefactor that has 
 swooped in to help other open source languages may never arrive on the 
 scene for D.  But maybe the big corporate benefactors like Google and 
 O'Reilly haven't been as important to the continued evolution and 
 success of Python/Perl/Ruby as I'm thinking.
 
 --bb


I think he'll do fine, perhaps better in some ways without such wealthy 
benefactors.  D has lasted this long against all odds: in fact, I think 
D has literally bucked the trends, considering it has only an individual 
backing it. As to his personal financial situation, I accept that as 
being his business, since he has never felt the need to share it :). 
One advantage to a lack of outside subsidizing is that D is not 
controlled by these external forces (at least, not that I know of :) ).

Mostly, I think D seems to depend on the fan element for it's viral 
effect, kind of a slow pervasive bubbling from the bottom up rather than 
coercion from the top (companies) down.  To me D represents another 
unusual and atypical movement much like Linux was for it's time.  D 
likely will follow a similar, albeit slow, growth curve.  I doubt that D 
is particularly comparable to any other "hot" language such that we can 
otherwise predict its outcome.

-JJR

dan <murpsoft hotmail.com> writes:

John Reimer Wrote:
 One advantage to a lack of outside subsidizing is that D is not 
 controlled by these external forces (at least, not that I know of :) ).

Rare and valuable in this day and age.

 Mostly, I think D seems to depend on the fan element for it's viral 
 effect, kind of a slow pervasive bubbling from the bottom up rather than 
 coercion from the top (companies) down.  To me D represents another 
 unusual and atypical movement much like Linux was for it's time.  D 
 likely will follow a similar, albeit slow, growth curve.  I doubt that D 
 is particularly comparable to any other "hot" language such that we can 
 otherwise predict its outcome.

My only major concern lies in that d isnt open source and is therefore bound to
walter.  if he goes, so does D.

Maybe we should get life insurance on him?

"Peter C. Chapin" <pchapin sover.net> writes:

dan wrote:

 My only major concern lies in that d isnt open source and is therefore bound
to walter.  if he goes, so does D.
 
 Maybe we should get life insurance on him?

Is there any reason (I'm thinking legal, mostly) why someone else
couldn't in principle independently implement a D compiler? The D
community is reasonably large and full of smart people, so I'm sure the
talent exists. Right now the motivation for creating a third party
compiler is low, but if Walter disappeared that might change.

I guess what I'm saying is that maybe the D community is already large
enough to be self-sustaining.

Peter

Frits van Bommel <fvbommel REMwOVExCAPSs.nl> writes:

Peter C. Chapin wrote:
 dan wrote:
 
 My only major concern lies in that d isnt open source and is therefore bound
to walter.  if he goes, so does D.

 Maybe we should get life insurance on him?

 
 Is there any reason (I'm thinking legal, mostly) why someone else
 couldn't in principle independently implement a D compiler? The D
 community is reasonably large and full of smart people, so I'm sure the
 talent exists. Right now the motivation for creating a third party
 compiler is low, but if Walter disappeared that might change.

An independent D compiler isn't a problem. There are even several in the 
works already.
The more likely problem is the D spec: it's copyrighted by Digital Mars, 
so only Digital Mars (and those it authorizes[1] to do so) may 
distribute it (and presumably nobody else may distribute modified 
versions). So until copyright runs out (unless Walter/Digital Mars 
transfers control of the spec over to some other person or 
organization[2]) the only option for continued evolution of the language 
may be a complete rewrite of the spec (perhaps based on the available 
compiler, but not on the current spec).


[1] I'm not sure if anyone else is currently authorized; even Tango 
(which has permission to redistribute DMD itself) seems to leave the 
spec out of their binary distributions that include DMD.

[2] In his testament, perhaps?

 I guess what I'm saying is that maybe the D community is already large
 enough to be self-sustaining.

Large enough? Quite possibly.
The legal issues mentioned above may be more problematic though, 
assuming the language is to continue to evolve.

Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:

Frits van Bommel wrote:
 Peter C. Chapin wrote:
 dan wrote:

 My only major concern lies in that d isnt open source and is 
 therefore bound to walter.  if he goes, so does D.

 Maybe we should get life insurance on him?

 Is there any reason (I'm thinking legal, mostly) why someone else
 couldn't in principle independently implement a D compiler? The D
 community is reasonably large and full of smart people, so I'm sure the
 talent exists. Right now the motivation for creating a third party
 compiler is low, but if Walter disappeared that might change.

 
 An independent D compiler isn't a problem. There are even several in the 
 works already.
 The more likely problem is the D spec: it's copyrighted by Digital Mars, 
 so only Digital Mars (and those it authorizes[1] to do so) may 
 distribute it (and presumably nobody else may distribute modified 
 versions). So until copyright runs out (unless Walter/Digital Mars 
 transfers control of the spec over to some other person or 
 organization[2]) the only option for continued evolution of the language 
 may be a complete rewrite of the spec (perhaps based on the available 
 compiler, but not on the current spec).
 
 
 [1] I'm not sure if anyone else is currently authorized; even Tango 
 (which has permission to redistribute DMD itself) seems to leave the 
 spec out of their binary distributions that include DMD.

Frankly, it's a topic we never broached with Walter.  We've simply been 
trying to keep the inclusion of Digital Mars stuff to a minimum as an 
act of good faith.


Sean

Dan <murpsoft hotmail.com> writes:

Sean Kelly Wrote:

 Frits van Bommel wrote:
 Peter C. Chapin wrote:
 dan wrote:

 My only major concern lies in that d isnt open source and is 
 therefore bound to walter.  if he goes, so does D.

 Maybe we should get life insurance on him?

 Is there any reason (I'm thinking legal, mostly) why someone else
 couldn't in principle independently implement a D compiler? The D
 community is reasonably large and full of smart people, so I'm sure the
 talent exists. Right now the motivation for creating a third party
 compiler is low, but if Walter disappeared that might change.

 
 An independent D compiler isn't a problem. There are even several in the 
 works already.
 The more likely problem is the D spec: it's copyrighted by Digital Mars, 
 so only Digital Mars (and those it authorizes[1] to do so) may 
 distribute it (and presumably nobody else may distribute modified 
 versions). So until copyright runs out (unless Walter/Digital Mars 
 transfers control of the spec over to some other person or 
 organization[2]) the only option for continued evolution of the language 
 may be a complete rewrite of the spec (perhaps based on the available 
 compiler, but not on the current spec).
 
 
 [1] I'm not sure if anyone else is currently authorized; even Tango 
 (which has permission to redistribute DMD itself) seems to leave the 
 spec out of their binary distributions that include DMD.

 
 Frankly, it's a topic we never broached with Walter.  We've simply been 
 trying to keep the inclusion of Digital Mars stuff to a minimum as an 
 act of good faith.

Walter,make it gnu if u pass on.  i dont trust anyone in particular to carry
the torch.

Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:

Dan wrote:
 Sean Kelly Wrote:
 
 Frits van Bommel wrote:
 Peter C. Chapin wrote:
 dan wrote:

 My only major concern lies in that d isnt open source and is 
 therefore bound to walter.  if he goes, so does D.

 Maybe we should get life insurance on him?

 Is there any reason (I'm thinking legal, mostly) why someone else
 couldn't in principle independently implement a D compiler? The D
 community is reasonably large and full of smart people, so I'm sure the
 talent exists. Right now the motivation for creating a third party
 compiler is low, but if Walter disappeared that might change.

 An independent D compiler isn't a problem. There are even several in the 
 works already.
 The more likely problem is the D spec: it's copyrighted by Digital Mars, 
 so only Digital Mars (and those it authorizes[1] to do so) may 
 distribute it (and presumably nobody else may distribute modified 
 versions). So until copyright runs out (unless Walter/Digital Mars 
 transfers control of the spec over to some other person or 
 organization[2]) the only option for continued evolution of the language 
 may be a complete rewrite of the spec (perhaps based on the available 
 compiler, but not on the current spec).


 [1] I'm not sure if anyone else is currently authorized; even Tango 
 (which has permission to redistribute DMD itself) seems to leave the 
 spec out of their binary distributions that include DMD.

 Frankly, it's a topic we never broached with Walter.  We've simply been 
 trying to keep the inclusion of Digital Mars stuff to a minimum as an 
 act of good faith.

 
 Walter,make it gnu if u pass on.  i dont trust anyone in particular to carry
the torch.

(channeling Walter)
"It is gnu already.  GDC."

--bb

John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:

Bill Baxter wrote:
 Dan wrote:
 Sean Kelly Wrote:

 Frits van Bommel wrote:
 Peter C. Chapin wrote:
 dan wrote:

 My only major concern lies in that d isnt open source and is 
 therefore bound to walter.  if he goes, so does D.

 Maybe we should get life insurance on him?

 Is there any reason (I'm thinking legal, mostly) why someone else
 couldn't in principle independently implement a D compiler? The D
 community is reasonably large and full of smart people, so I'm sure 
 the
 talent exists. Right now the motivation for creating a third party
 compiler is low, but if Walter disappeared that might change.

 An independent D compiler isn't a problem. There are even several in 
 the works already.
 The more likely problem is the D spec: it's copyrighted by Digital 
 Mars, so only Digital Mars (and those it authorizes[1] to do so) may 
 distribute it (and presumably nobody else may distribute modified 
 versions). So until copyright runs out (unless Walter/Digital Mars 
 transfers control of the spec over to some other person or 
 organization[2]) the only option for continued evolution of the 
 language may be a complete rewrite of the spec (perhaps based on the 
 available compiler, but not on the current spec).


 [1] I'm not sure if anyone else is currently authorized; even Tango 
 (which has permission to redistribute DMD itself) seems to leave the 
 spec out of their binary distributions that include DMD.

 Frankly, it's a topic we never broached with Walter.  We've simply 
 been trying to keep the inclusion of Digital Mars stuff to a minimum 
 as an act of good faith.

 Walter,make it gnu if u pass on.  i dont trust anyone in particular to 
 carry the torch.

 
 (channeling Walter)
 "It is gnu already.  GDC."
 
 --bb

Hmm... is it?  I thought that it wasn't unless all copyright is passed 
to  GNU... that was the main issue of why GNU will not include it in 
GCC.  They won't accept the code, and maintain it, unless they own all 
rights to it. And Walter wasn't willing (understandably) to relinquish 
all rights to them.  GDC is developed independently of GNU.

-JJR

"Bruce Adams" <tortoise_74 yeah.who.co.uk> writes:

On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 15:10:12 -0000, John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com>  
wrote:

 Walter,make it gnu if u pass on.  i dont trust anyone in particular to  
 carry the torch.

  (channeling Walter)
 "It is gnu already.  GDC."
  --bb

 Hmm... is it?  I thought that it wasn't unless all copyright is passed  
 to  GNU... that was the main issue of why GNU will not include it in  
 GCC.  They won't accept the code, and maintain it, unless they own all  
 rights to it. And Walter wasn't willing (understandably) to relinquish  
 all rights to them.  GDC is developed independently of GNU.

 -JJR

That makes sense. The DMD front end is open source but not copylefted.
 From the dmd license:

"If you send any messages to Digital Mars, on either the Digital Mars
newsgroups, the Digital Mars mailing list, or via email, you agree not
to make any claims of intellectual
property rights over the contents of those messages.

The Software is copyrighted and comes with a single user license,
and may not be redistributed. If you wish to obtain a redistribution  
license,
please contact Digital Mars."

^ So we don't even own our own messages. Somehow I'm not sure that part of  
it will hold
up in court.

However, the source code tells a slightly different story:

// Copyright (c) 1999-2006 by Digital Mars
// All Rights Reserved
// written by Walter Bright
// www.digitalmars.com
// License for redistribution is by either the Artistic License
// in artistic.txt, or the GNU General Public License in gnu.txt.
// See the included readme.txt for details.

readme.txt
"These sources are free, they are redistributable and modifiable
under the terms of the GNU General Public License (attached as gpl.txt),
or the Artistic License (attached as artistic.txt)."

So it looks like its public domain not copyleft unless you want it to be  
copyleft
by way of your changes, which would be slightly difficult to support  
legally.
That would explain GNU rejecting it.

Lutger <lutger.blijdestijn gmail.com> writes:

Bruce Adams wrote:
  > That makes sense. The DMD front end is open source but not copylefted.
  From the dmd license:
 
 "If you send any messages to Digital Mars, on either the Digital Mars
 newsgroups, the Digital Mars mailing list, or via email, you agree not
 to make any claims of intellectual
 property rights over the contents of those messages.
 
 The Software is copyrighted and comes with a single user license,
 and may not be redistributed. If you wish to obtain a redistribution 
 license,
 please contact Digital Mars."
 
 ^ So we don't even own our own messages. Somehow I'm not sure that part 
 of it will hold
 up in court.

No, it just means you promise not to sue DM over content of messages, 
that's what it's for.

'The Software' here includes the backend which has a different license 
than the frontend as you see in the source.

There's a difference between license and copyright: although the 
front-end is GPL the copyright is owned by Walter Bright and probably 
some other people who have contributed. As has been said, GNU demands 
that copyright is signed over to them, which isn't even possible in some 
countries. Giving up this copyright means that Walter cannot ever 
release the frontend or something based on it with a different license, 
but GNU can.

btw. I'm not a lawyer.

"dominik" <aha aha.com> writes:

"Frits van Bommel" <fvbommel REMwOVExCAPSs.nl> wrote in message 
news:fkdou8$1nmf$1 digitalmars.com...
 complete rewrite of the spec (perhaps based on the available compiler, but 
 not on the current spec).

thanks for the laugh :) 

John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:

dan wrote:
 John Reimer Wrote:
 One advantage to a lack of outside subsidizing is that D is not 
 controlled by these external forces (at least, not that I know of :) ).

 
 Rare and valuable in this day and age.
 
 Mostly, I think D seems to depend on the fan element for it's viral 
 effect, kind of a slow pervasive bubbling from the bottom up rather than 
 coercion from the top (companies) down.  To me D represents another 
 unusual and atypical movement much like Linux was for it's time.  D 
 likely will follow a similar, albeit slow, growth curve.  I doubt that D 
 is particularly comparable to any other "hot" language such that we can 
 otherwise predict its outcome.

 
 My only major concern lies in that d isnt open source and is therefore bound
to walter.  if he goes, so does D.
 
 Maybe we should get life insurance on him?


Life insurance?  Poor Walter. We're already talking about his demise. :(

Death is inevitable for all, so that does seem to be a more valid 
concern as far as D goes, I guess (in contrast to concerns about 
financial support).  But I still think there's little to worry about 
here since Walter has associates with a keen interest in D, and I wager 
he's "covered" in this area.  I doubt D will disappear.  I think what 
people are looking for are assurances from Walter, but I don't believe 
they are necessary.  The worst that could happen is that D's 
specifications will freeze for awhile. ;)

Overall, this seems to become awkward and unfeeling to worry about an 
abstract and lifeless entity (ie. D) which has little real worth 
compared to the designer himself.

At any rate, somebody will likely take up the baton: D seems to have 
become popular enough now. No, I don't think we have to be gloomy about 
D. :)

-JJR

"Bruce Adams" <tortoise_74 yeah.who.co.uk> writes:

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:12:34 -0000, John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com>  
wrote:

 dan wrote:
 John Reimer Wrote:
 One advantage to a lack of outside subsidizing is that D is not  
 controlled by these external forces (at least, not that I know of :) ).

  Rare and valuable in this day and age.

 Mostly, I think D seems to depend on the fan element for it's viral  
 effect, kind of a slow pervasive bubbling from the bottom up rather  
 than coercion from the top (companies) down.  To me D represents  
 another unusual and atypical movement much like Linux was for it's  
 time.  D likely will follow a similar, albeit slow, growth curve.  I  
 doubt that D is particularly comparable to any other "hot" language  
 such that we can otherwise predict its outcome.

  My only major concern lies in that d isnt open source and is therefore  
 bound to walter.  if he goes, so does D.
  Maybe we should get life insurance on him?


My understanding was that the D language specification was open 'source'  
but the DMD
compiler itself was not. I was sure I'd read this on the digital mars site  
somewhere
but I can't for the life of me find it.
 Life insurance?  Poor Walter. We're already talking about his demise. :(

I can't help worrying that one of the "vote++" people might "go postal"  
one day
when the reverse encoding of expanding variadic macro initialisers  
features isn't
added to D. Still, I suspect Walter knows someone who owns a big gun  
whether
or not he has one himself, so maybe it wouldn't be a problem. :)