Open source dmd on Reddit!

[Gregor Richards]

I sort of hate to throw myself into the fray, especially since my 
studies have kept me more-or-less detached from D entirely, but ...

I realize people are going to misuse the term Open Source. However, the 
term is NOT generic, and DOES have a specific meaning; it is in fact 
trademarked, and using it to describe software that does not fit the 
Open Source Definition is in violation of the trademark. But more 
importantly than that, it's confusing to the loads of people out here 
who use F/OSS and depend on the freedoms it provides. Without 
redistribution rights, F/OSS is substantially less valuable, as it 
doesn't provide any escape if the original creator loses interest, 
spontaneously combusts, decides he hates giving away his source and 
closes it again, etc, etc, etc.

I understand that the reason the redistribution license isn't fully Open 
Source is for quirkly legal reasons with Walter's license of it, and so 
it's not really anybody's fault. I'm not trying to put any blame 
anywhere for that part.

My only request is that people (or at least Walter) don't describe it 
using the term "Open Source". It's confusing, it's wrong, and it dilutes 
a perfectly meaningful term. Use "source available", "source included", 
"non-redistributable source provided", I don't care, just not the term 
with loaded additional meaning.

  - Gregor Richards

PS: Yes, I realize that there's nothing in the words "open" and "source" 
that suggest all the other stuff. Welcome to English.