my opinion on secrecy of D license

[BCS]

In article <e5a17l$i1k$1 at digitaldaemon.com>, Tydr Schnubbis says...
>
[...]
>
>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.
>

Why? This is not a rectorial question, what about it gives this impression?

>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.

How about if this is put at the top of the licence page:

"At a minimum, DMD and Phobos can be downloaded for your own use. You may use
both without any restrictions with regards to the use or distribution of the
programs developed with them."

>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.
>

I hear you, I hate it when I run up against a 40 page licence. In this respect
DMD is much better than a lot of stuff. It has one of the shorter licences I
have ever run across (excluding the I-don't-care-what-you-do-with-this licence)