www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.learn - D license

reply Pascal Guérin <Pascal_member pathlink.com> writes:
Hi,

I'd like to know if D allows to create a proprietary, closed source, commercial
software? Any license confuses me (english's not my first language).

Thanks in advance
Aug 31 2005
next sibling parent clayasaurus <clayasaurus gmail.com> writes:
Pascal Guérin wrote:

 Hi,
 
 I'd like to know if D allows to create a proprietary, closed source, commercial
 software? Any license confuses me (english's not my first language).
 
 Thanks in advance
 
 


Yes.
Aug 31 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent Derek Parnell <derek psych.ward> writes:
On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 01:50:48 +0000 (UTC), Pascal Guérin wrote:


 Hi,
 
 I'd like to know if D allows to create a proprietary, closed source, commercial
 software? Any license confuses me (english's not my first language).


Yes. 

You can use the DMD software to create anything that you think is
reasonable and you do not owe DigitalMars anything. Also, DigitalMars
cannot be held responsible for anything you do create.

You cannot distribute the DMD compiler, or other DigitalMars software,
without getting explicit permission from DigitalMars first.

Well that's how I read it, but I'm not a lawyer so take care.

-- 
Derek
(skype: derek.j.parnell)
Melbourne, Australia
1/09/2005 12:03:02 PM
Aug 31 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Manfred Nowak <svv1999 hotmail.com> writes:
Pascal Guérin wrote


 Hi,
 
 I'd like to know if D allows to create a proprietary, closed
 source, commercial software?


[...]

No.

-manfred
Aug 31 2005
parent reply clayasaurus <clayasaurus gmail.com> writes:
Manfred Nowak wrote:

 Pascal Guérin wrote
 
 

Hi,

I'd like to know if D allows to create a proprietary, closed
source, commercial software?


 
 [...]
 
 No.
 
 -manfred


Why not? The topic has come up numerous times before and Walter has 
always said yes. Am I missing something?

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/15376.html
Sep 01 2005
parent Pascal <Pascal_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <df834o$21gq$1 digitaldaemon.com>, clayasaurus says...

Manfred Nowak wrote:

 Pascal Guérin wrote
 
 

Hi,

I'd like to know if D allows to create a proprietary, closed
source, commercial software?


 
 [...]
 
 No.
 
 -manfred


Why not? The topic has come up numerous times before and Walter has 
always said yes. Am I missing something?

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/15376.html


If walter (isn't he the creator of D) said yes, then i guess it's ok.
Sep 02 2005
prev sibling parent reply "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
"Pascal Guérin" <Pascal_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:df5mpo$31fj$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 I'd like to know if D allows to create a proprietary, closed source,


commercial

 software?


Yes.
Sep 02 2005
parent reply "Rob Saunders" <chojin internode.on.net> writes:
To me, if one thing is to hold up the future of D, it's that tricky licence. 
I couldn't fully understand it myself, and legally some aspects of it would 
seem hard to enforce (however I'm not a lawyer either so who knows).

How open is the D specification? The compiler itself may have a licence, but 
am I within my own rights to create and distribute/sell my own compiler for 
the D language? (this is entirely hypothetical -I don't want to create a 
compiler! But other people will and this will destroy D as a language if 
so).


 I'd like to know if D allows to create a proprietary, closed source,


 commercial

 software?


 Yes.
Sep 08 2005
next sibling parent reply John Demme <me teqdruid.com> writes:
Walter posted some time ago a rather interesting story about how he knew
that C++ would be big- that one didn't have to (pay to) license it to
write a compiler for it.  The same is true for D.  The spec is open.

-John Demme

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 00:47:41 +1000, Rob Saunders wrote:


 To me, if one thing is to hold up the future of D, it's that tricky licence. 
 I couldn't fully understand it myself, and legally some aspects of it would 
 seem hard to enforce (however I'm not a lawyer either so who knows).
 
 How open is the D specification? The compiler itself may have a licence, but 
 am I within my own rights to create and distribute/sell my own compiler for 
 the D language? (this is entirely hypothetical -I don't want to create a 
 compiler! But other people will and this will destroy D as a language if 
 so).
 

 I'd like to know if D allows to create a proprietary, closed source,


 commercial

 software?


 Yes.
Sep 08 2005
parent reply Manfred Nowak <svv1999 hotmail.com> writes:
John Demme wrote:

[...]

  The same is true for D. The spec is open. 


How this? I remeber a post of him, saying, that the specs are plain 
old copyrighted.

-manfred
Sep 08 2005
parent reply Derek Parnell <derek psych.ward> writes:
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 02:33:30 +0000 (UTC), Manfred Nowak wrote:


 John Demme wrote:
 
 [...]

  The same is true for D. The spec is open. 


 
 How this? I remeber a post of him, saying, that the specs are plain 
 old copyrighted.


I suspect that John meant that the specification is free to be used by
people other than Walter Bright. The actual text of the published
specification is copyrighted by Walter.

-- 
Derek
(skype: derek.j.parnell)
Melbourne, Australia
9/09/2005 2:31:18 PM
Sep 08 2005
parent "Rob Saunders" <chojin internode.on.net> writes:
This is what I mean - it's all... not in writing. Nobody is seriously going 
to spend the time to implement their own version if they're unsure of murky 
legal waters up ahead. It should be stated clearly on the D Spec that it is 
open for all. Just don't use a licence like GPL. Yuck.


  The same is true for D. The spec is open.


 How this? I remeber a post of him, saying, that the specs are plain
 old copyrighted.


 I suspect that John meant that the specification is free to be used by
 people other than Walter Bright. The actual text of the published
 specification is copyrighted by Walter.
Sep 08 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Walter Bright" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
"Rob Saunders" <chojin internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:dfpiuj$2sdi$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 To me, if one thing is to hold up the future of D, it's that tricky


licence.

 I couldn't fully understand it myself, and legally some aspects of it


would

 seem hard to enforce (however I'm not a lawyer either so who knows).

 How open is the D specification? The compiler itself may have a licence,


but

 am I within my own rights to create and distribute/sell my own compiler


for

 the D language? (this is entirely hypothetical -I don't want to create a
 compiler! But other people will and this will destroy D as a language if
 so).


 I'd like to know if D allows to create a proprietary, closed source,


 commercial

 software?


 Yes.




You're free to write your own D implementation from scratch, on your terms.
I disagree this will destroy D - I think it is a great source of strength
for other languages to have competing implementations, why not for D? I
encourage anyone who wants to create an independent D compiler.

You're free to write your own D implementation using the DMD front end
sources - use them freely if the result will be GPL'd, you'll need a license
to use the DMD front end code for a non-GPL product.

The D specification is copyrighted. It is not patented. Therefore, legally,
you can write your own D specification as long as it doesn't copy verbatim
from the Digital Mars one. That said, I'm pretty easy about giving
permission to do wholesale copying if I feel it will be good for the D
community. Some examples are the foreign language versions of the spec
prepared by others.

You may use the DMD compiler and Phobos library to create closed source,
proprietary, commercial D programs without needing a further license from
Digital Mars.

You may not use DMD to create programs which, if they fail, will cause
injury or significant property damage. If you want to create such programs,
you'll need to send me a piece of paper indemnifying Digital Mars from all
liability.
Sep 09 2005
parent reply Manfred Nowak <svv1999 hotmail.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

[...]

 Therefore, legally, you can write your own D specification as
 long as it doesn't copy verbatim from the Digital Mars one.


Thanks. At least to me its a relief, because I have tried to 
establish a context free grammar for D from the specs.

But in order to eliminate conflicts and adapting it to my style of 
specifying and according to the errors nearly everyone makes without 
intensively testing, I was and still am sure, that there is nearly no 
way accaptable by most legal communitys to prove, that the developed 
CFG is as close at the specs of that time as was possible to me.

Therefore, without a written assurance directly from you I was not 
willing to give the CFG to the public.

If I understand your statement correctly I am even free to simplify 
the specs in order to have a CFG with a shorter textual length and 
publish that.

-manfred
Sep 09 2005
parent "Walter Bright" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
"Manfred Nowak" <svv1999 hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dfthjd$ahm$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 Walter Bright wrote:

 [...]

 Therefore, legally, you can write your own D specification as
 long as it doesn't copy verbatim from the Digital Mars one.


 Thanks. At least to me its a relief, because I have tried to
 establish a context free grammar for D from the specs.

 But in order to eliminate conflicts and adapting it to my style of
 specifying and according to the errors nearly everyone makes without
 intensively testing, I was and still am sure, that there is nearly no
 way accaptable by most legal communitys to prove, that the developed
 CFG is as close at the specs of that time as was possible to me.

 Therefore, without a written assurance directly from you I was not
 willing to give the CFG to the public.

 If I understand your statement correctly I am even free to simplify
 the specs in order to have a CFG with a shorter textual length and
 publish that.


You have my explicit permission to publish your CFG any way you want to.

-Walter
Sep 09 2005
prev sibling parent reply John Love-Jensen <love-jensen mchsi.com> writes:
Rob Saunders wrote:


 To me, if one thing is to hold up the future of D, it's that tricky licence. 


Tricky licence?  D has one of the least "tricky" licence I've seen.

I don't understand what trick is referred to here, or is worrisome here.

Sincerely,
--Eljay
Sep 11 2005
parent reply "Walter Bright" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
"John Love-Jensen" <love-jensen mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:dg1g8a$2k3u$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 To me, if one thing is to hold up the future of D, it's that tricky




licence.

 Tricky licence?  D has one of the least "tricky" licence I've seen.
 I don't understand what trick is referred to here, or is worrisome here.


There is no attempt to trick anyone with the license. If there is anything
that gives that impression, let me know and I'll try to clarify it.
Sep 12 2005
parent "Rob Saunders" <chojin internode.on.net> writes:
I'm sorry I didn't mean to imply anybody was attempting to trick, just 
saying I found it a little tricky to understand from a legal standpoint. Now 
that has been cleared up, I can see compiler authors have nothing to worry 
about, and D has a bright future.

"Walter Bright" <newshound digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:dg4dqj$22bc$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 "John Love-Jensen" <love-jensen mchsi.com> wrote in message
 news:dg1g8a$2k3u$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 To me, if one thing is to hold up the future of D, it's that tricky




 licence.

 Tricky licence?  D has one of the least "tricky" licence I've seen.
 I don't understand what trick is referred to here, or is worrisome here.


 There is no attempt to trick anyone with the license. If there is anything
 that gives that impression, let me know and I'll try to clarify it.
Sep 16 2005