my opinion on secrecy of D license

[Tydr Schnubbis]

Dave wrote:
 >
 > This comes up often enough that I think a mini-FAQ should be added right
 > by the download links summing up what you've mentioned above. Something
 > like:
 >
 > License summary
 > ---------------
 >
 > DMD
 > ---
 > - You can distribute anything compiled w/ DMD in any way you see fit as
 > long as you follow licensing restrictions (if any) on your applications
 > source code.
 > - DMD is non-distributable except by Digital Mars or authorized 
affiliates.
 > - The DMD compiler front-end is open source. However, <license
 > restrictions here>.
 >
 > Phobos (a D language standard library implementation packaged w/ DMD)
 > ------
 > - You can distribute anything built w/ DMD in any way you see fit as
 > long as you follow licensing restrictions (if any) on your applications
 > source code.
 > - Phobos is open-source, but you must follow the license restrictions
 > found at the beginning of each module to distribute any Phobos source 
code.
 >
 > DMD and Phobos Documentation
 > -------------
 > - The DMD and Phobos documentation is provided publicly for your use.
 > - You may distribute the DMD and Phobos documentation under the terms of
 > <whatever the license is>.

Too me it still sounds like you don't want me to use your software.  Or 
like you're covering your back so you can screw me badly and get away 
with it.  Like the sales contract for a second-hand car.

That's the problem, I think.  Both your version and the dmd faq give me 
the inital impression that this is unsafe territory.  Or at least, that 
it might be.  Just the fact that reading the faq doesn't really clear 
the issue up completely is a danger sign for many, I imagine.

It's like the door is closed, and then you open it up just a little bit. 
  The first impression should be that it's wide open - come on and use D 
for whatever you like.  No slimey lawyers attached.  The restrictions 
that are actually there, seem more important than actually are.

Most people are probably fed up with reading licences and trying to 
figure out if there's anything hidden between the lines, or not.  I 
think there should be a simple summary of the licence somewhere (outside 
the faq), and then you can read the whole thing when you're actually 
gearing up toward using D for a major project.


It think the way they explain the licencing issues on these pages is 
nice, even if D's license might be more complicated:
http://www.python.org/
http://www.python.org/psf/license/