On 15 March 2018 at 20:05, Iain Buclaw <ibuc...@gdcproject.org> wrote: > On 17 February 2018 at 16:08, Iain Buclaw <ibuc...@gdcproject.org> wrote: >> On 25 October 2017 at 03:06, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> On 10/18/2017 01:33 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote: >>>> On 6 October 2017 at 14:51, Ian Lance Taylor <i...@golang.org> wrote: >>>>> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 1:34 AM, Iain Buclaw <ibuc...@gdcproject.org> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Out of curiosity, I did have a look at some of the tops of gofrontend >>>>>> sources this morning. They are all copyright the Go Authors, and are >>>>>> licensed as BSD. So I'm not sure if having copyright FSF and >>>>>> distributing under GPL is strictly required. And from a maintenance >>>>>> point of view, it would be easier to merge in upstream changes as-is >>>>>> without some diff/merging tool. >>>>> >>>>> The GCC steering committee accepted the gofrontend code under a >>>>> non-GPL license with the understanding that the master code would live >>>>> in a separate repository that would be mirrored into the GCC repo (the >>>>> master repository for gofrontend is currently at >>>>> https://go.googlesource.com/gofrontend/). Personally I don't see a >>>>> problem with doing the same for the D frontend. >>>>> >>>>> Ian >>>> >>>> Should I request that maybe Donald from FSF chime in here? I'd rather >>>> avoid another stalemate on this. >>> Absolutely, though RMS should probably be included on any discussion >>> with Donald. I think the FSF needs to chime in and I think the steering >>> committee needs to chime in once we've got guidance from the FSF. >>> >>> The first and most important question that needs to be answered is >>> whether or not the FSF would be OK including the DMD bits with the >>> license (boost) as-is into GCC. >>> >>> If that's not acceptable, then we'd have to look at some kind of script >>> to fix the copyrights. >>> Jeff >>> >> >> >> Just touching base here, hope you all had a good New Year. >> >> So far, I've only had a general "Yes this is fine" from Ted who's >> managing the copyright assignments at the FSF. >> >> His his initial response being: >> --- >> If the D files are all Boost v.1 and we can get assignments from all >> contributors, there is no problem including the files as there are >> currently. Boost is compatible with GPLv3 or later since it is >> basically a [permissive license][0]. >> >> [0]: https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:Boost1.0 >> --- >> >> And subsequent follow-up: >> --- >> The questions that remain still are whether there are any unaccounted >> for contributors to this (but I don't believe this is the case from >> the first pass). We have the assignment for the past and future code >> from Digital Mars. The second question, which is outside of my >> discretion is deciding whether the Boost license is acceptable. It >> seems that it is compatible so it doesn't appear that incompatibility >> is a problem, but of course there are still policy considerations. >> These are currently being discussed on the mailing-list and I will add >> this message to the thread. >> --- >> >> >> I have asked for clarity on a few more finer points, but still haven't >> heard back after a number of attempts to get an answer back. >> >> Can we get discussion rolling again on this? >> >> Since the last message, upstream dmd has switched all copyrights to >> "The D Language Foundation", which has been reflected downstream in >> gdc. >> >> So, as a policy consideration from the SC, is it acceptable to have >> the following notice at the top of all dfrontend/* sources? >> >> --- >> Copyright (C) 2010-2018 by The D Language Foundation, All Rights Reserved >> All Rights Reserved, written by Walter Bright >> http://www.digitalmars.com >> Distributed under the Boost Software License, Version 1.0. >> (See accompanying file LICENSE or copy at >> http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt) >> --- >> >> And if no, what should it instead be? >> >> There are no restrictions on changing the copyright to FSF and license as >> GPLv3+ >> >> Regards >> Iain. > > Tentative ping on this. > > I would submit a revived patch set, as active development has not > stopped. Just would like input on what would be preferential here. >
Ping? It would be nice to get any response here, from either yourselves or the FSF, who've been silent for many months. Having no guidance to go off, I will just resubmit the current patches with upstream dmd copyright modified as GPL next week when I have time. Iain.