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.
- Re: Open source dmd on Reddit! Gregor Richards
-
