The D license

[Michiel Helvensteijn]

Jesse Phillips wrote:

>> > There is really nothing wrong with the opening of the license other
>> > than it being more direct than any other license.
>> 
>> Yeah.
>> 
>> "The Software was not designed to operate after December 31, 1999."
>> 
>> That's not wrong.
> 
> It isn't wrong, just because it is after 2000 doesn't mean the software
> was designed to work in this millennium. Sure, the software has proven
> itself, but doesn't make the statement invalid.

The language and compiler are still now being worked on under this license,
aren't they? Yet the statement is not invalid?

Since we are now living "after December 31, 1999" (and we haven't invented
time travel), that suggests to me that the software is not being designed
to operate at all. That's, if not wrong, completely silly.

-- 
Michiel Helvensteijn