Re: [PING][PATCH v3 1/14] D: The front-end (DMD) language implementation and license.
On 15 March 2018 at 20:05, Iain Buclaw wrote: > On 17 February 2018 at 16:08, Iain Buclaw wrote: >> On 25 October 2017 at 03:06, Jeff Law wrote: >>> On 10/18/2017 01:33 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote: On 6 October 2017 at 14:51, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 1:34 AM, Iain Buclaw > 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.
[PING][PATCH v3 1/14] D: The front-end (DMD) language implementation and license.
On 17 February 2018 at 16:08, Iain Buclaw wrote: > On 25 October 2017 at 03:06, Jeff Law wrote: >> On 10/18/2017 01:33 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote: >>> On 6 October 2017 at 14:51, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 1:34 AM, Iain Buclaw 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. Iain.
Re: [PATCH v3 1/14] D: The front-end (DMD) language implementation and license.
On 25 October 2017 at 03:06, Jeff Law wrote: > On 10/18/2017 01:33 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote: >> On 6 October 2017 at 14:51, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >>> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 1:34 AM, Iain Buclaw 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.
Re: [PATCH v3 1/14] D: The front-end (DMD) language implementation and license.
On 13 November 2017 at 00:20, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > On 11/06/2017 01:46 PM, Iain Buclaw wrote: >> >> On 25 October 2017 at 03:06, Jeff Law wrote: >>> >>> On 10/18/2017 01:33 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote: On 6 October 2017 at 14:51, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 1:34 AM, Iain Buclaw > 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 >>> >> >> Assuming then, that we'll ship with all copyright notices amended to >> be copyright FSF and GPL licensed - that can be fixed up in a later >> patch - is there anything further needed to push this review process >> further? >> >> Iain. > > > Hi Jeff, Ian, Joseph: thanks for your consideration. Is there anything we > can do on our side to move things forward? Please advise, thanks! > > Andrei > Ping? I was recently made aware that upstream DMD has a pending patch to switch copyright ownership of all its sources to "The D Language Foundation", however it now seems blocked pending on the outcome here. Iain.
Re: [PATCH v3 1/14] D: The front-end (DMD) language implementation and license.
On 11/06/2017 01:46 PM, Iain Buclaw wrote: On 25 October 2017 at 03:06, Jeff Law wrote: On 10/18/2017 01:33 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote: On 6 October 2017 at 14:51, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 1:34 AM, Iain Buclaw 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 Assuming then, that we'll ship with all copyright notices amended to be copyright FSF and GPL licensed - that can be fixed up in a later patch - is there anything further needed to push this review process further? Iain. Hi Jeff, Ian, Joseph: thanks for your consideration. Is there anything we can do on our side to move things forward? Please advise, thanks! Andrei
Re: [PATCH v3 1/14] D: The front-end (DMD) language implementation and license.
On 25 October 2017 at 03:06, Jeff Law wrote: > On 10/18/2017 01:33 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote: >> On 6 October 2017 at 14:51, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >>> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 1:34 AM, Iain Buclaw 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 > Assuming then, that we'll ship with all copyright notices amended to be copyright FSF and GPL licensed - that can be fixed up in a later patch - is there anything further needed to push this review process further? Iain.
Re: [PATCH v3 1/14] D: The front-end (DMD) language implementation and license.
On 10/24/2017 4:58 PM, Jeff Law wrote: On 10/03/2017 03:36 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Jeff Law wrote: /* Copyright (c) 2010-2014 by Digital Mars * 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) If the code was assigned to the FSF in 2011, then the FSF would have ownership of the code. And the FSF would be the only entity that could change the license (which according to your message changed to Boost in 2014). So something seems wrong here. The standard FSF assignment would allow the contributor to distribute their own code under such terms as they see fit. Right. But for the copy distributed in GCC we should have FSF ownership and a standard GCC copyright. Anything else would seem to require FSF approval, particularly for the compiler proper (as opposed to the runtime systems where we have looser requirements). I'm certainly not comfortable going outside the box here without SC and/or FSF approval. Jeff Iain has my approval to change the copyright and licenses as required by the FSF, but as a fork. I.e. the stuff the D Language Foundation and Digital Mars releases, like DMD, will remain as is. -- Walter Bright *Digital Mars* C, C++, D and Javascript compilers
Re: [PATCH v3 1/14] D: The front-end (DMD) language implementation and license.
On 25 October 2017 at 03:06, Jeff Law wrote: > On 10/18/2017 01:33 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote: >> On 6 October 2017 at 14:51, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >>> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 1:34 AM, Iain Buclaw 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 > OK, I'll cc in Donald. Walter/Andrei, the ball may be in your court here if there's any copyright problems. Regards Iain.
Re: [PATCH v3 1/14] D: The front-end (DMD) language implementation and license.
On 10/18/2017 01:33 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote: > On 6 October 2017 at 14:51, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 1:34 AM, Iain Buclaw 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
Re: [PATCH v3 1/14] D: The front-end (DMD) language implementation and license.
On 10/03/2017 03:36 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Jeff Law wrote: > >> /* Copyright (c) 2010-2014 by Digital Mars >> * 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) >> >> If the code was assigned to the FSF in 2011, then the FSF would have >> ownership of the code. And the FSF would be the only entity that could >> change the license (which according to your message changed to Boost in >> 2014). So something seems wrong here. > > The standard FSF assignment would allow the contributor to distribute > their own code under such terms as they see fit. > Right. But for the copy distributed in GCC we should have FSF ownership and a standard GCC copyright. Anything else would seem to require FSF approval, particularly for the compiler proper (as opposed to the runtime systems where we have looser requirements). I'm certainly not comfortable going outside the box here without SC and/or FSF approval. Jeff
Re: [PATCH v3 1/14] D: The front-end (DMD) language implementation and license.
On 6 October 2017 at 14:51, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 1:34 AM, Iain Buclaw 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. Regards Iain.
Re: [PATCH v3 1/14] D: The front-end (DMD) language implementation and license.
Thanks, Ian! -- Andrei
Re: [PATCH v3 1/14] D: The front-end (DMD) language implementation and license.
On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 1:34 AM, Iain Buclaw 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
Re: [PATCH v3 1/14] D: The front-end (DMD) language implementation and license.
On 10/6/2017 1:34 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote: On 6 October 2017 at 02:57, Walter Bright wrote: On 10/5/2017 3:59 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote: On 3 October 2017 at 23:36, Joseph Myers wrote: On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Jeff Law wrote: /* Copyright (c) 2010-2014 by Digital Mars * 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) If the code was assigned to the FSF in 2011, then the FSF would have ownership of the code. And the FSF would be the only entity that could change the license (which according to your message changed to Boost in 2014). So something seems wrong here. The standard FSF assignment would allow the contributor to distribute their own code under such terms as they see fit. Walter, would you mind clarifying details of your assignment? Was it a standard assignment? Did you request for any amendments? I'm good with FSF owning their copy and it being under the GPL and Digital Mars owning our copy and it being Boost licensed. 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. Regards, Iain. That certainly seems like a more convenient solution.
Re: [PATCH v3 1/14] D: The front-end (DMD) language implementation and license.
On 6 October 2017 at 02:57, Walter Bright wrote: > > > On 10/5/2017 3:59 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote: >> >> On 3 October 2017 at 23:36, Joseph Myers wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Jeff Law wrote: >>> /* Copyright (c) 2010-2014 by Digital Mars * 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) If the code was assigned to the FSF in 2011, then the FSF would have ownership of the code. And the FSF would be the only entity that could change the license (which according to your message changed to Boost in 2014). So something seems wrong here. >>> >>> >>> The standard FSF assignment would allow the contributor to distribute >>> their own code under such terms as they see fit. >>> >> >> Walter, would you mind clarifying details of your assignment? Was it a >> standard assignment? Did you request for any amendments? > > > I'm good with FSF owning their copy and it being under the GPL and Digital > Mars owning our copy and it being Boost licensed. > 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. Regards, Iain.
Re: [PATCH v3 1/14] D: The front-end (DMD) language implementation and license.
On 10/5/2017 3:59 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote: On 3 October 2017 at 23:36, Joseph Myers wrote: On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Jeff Law wrote: /* Copyright (c) 2010-2014 by Digital Mars * 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) If the code was assigned to the FSF in 2011, then the FSF would have ownership of the code. And the FSF would be the only entity that could change the license (which according to your message changed to Boost in 2014). So something seems wrong here. The standard FSF assignment would allow the contributor to distribute their own code under such terms as they see fit. Walter, would you mind clarifying details of your assignment? Was it a standard assignment? Did you request for any amendments? I'm good with FSF owning their copy and it being under the GPL and Digital Mars owning our copy and it being Boost licensed. Jeff, I'm no legal, so I can't comment on it. Maybe there's someone from the FSF who be able to confirm? I'll cc in Andrei as well, so the D language foundation is in on this. Regards, Iain.
Re: [PATCH v3 1/14] D: The front-end (DMD) language implementation and license.
On 3 October 2017 at 23:36, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Jeff Law wrote: > >> /* Copyright (c) 2010-2014 by Digital Mars >> * 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) >> >> If the code was assigned to the FSF in 2011, then the FSF would have >> ownership of the code. And the FSF would be the only entity that could >> change the license (which according to your message changed to Boost in >> 2014). So something seems wrong here. > > The standard FSF assignment would allow the contributor to distribute > their own code under such terms as they see fit. > Walter, would you mind clarifying details of your assignment? Was it a standard assignment? Did you request for any amendments? Jeff, I'm no legal, so I can't comment on it. Maybe there's someone from the FSF who be able to confirm? I'll cc in Andrei as well, so the D language foundation is in on this. Regards, Iain.
Re: [PATCH v3 1/14] D: The front-end (DMD) language implementation and license.
On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Jeff Law wrote: > /* Copyright (c) 2010-2014 by Digital Mars > * 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) > > If the code was assigned to the FSF in 2011, then the FSF would have > ownership of the code. And the FSF would be the only entity that could > change the license (which according to your message changed to Boost in > 2014). So something seems wrong here. The standard FSF assignment would allow the contributor to distribute their own code under such terms as they see fit. -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
Re: [PATCH v3 1/14] D: The front-end (DMD) language implementation and license.
On 10/02/2017 02:45 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote: > Changes since previous are just merge latest 2.076 release. > > Uploaded patch to my ftp due to size limitations. So if the code was assigned by Walter to the FSF back in 2011 (per your message on Sep 11 and Walter's reply on Sep 11) then the copyright notices seem totally wrong. For example dfrontend/aav.c: /* Copyright (c) 2010-2014 by Digital Mars * 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) If the code was assigned to the FSF in 2011, then the FSF would have ownership of the code. And the FSF would be the only entity that could change the license (which according to your message changed to Boost in 2014). So something seems wrong here. I'd really like to get the licensing issues and copyright notices settled before I dig into this further. Jeff
[PATCH v3 1/14] D: The front-end (DMD) language implementation and license.
Changes since previous are just merge latest 2.076 release. Uploaded patch to my ftp due to size limitations. Regards Iain. --- ftp://ftp.gdcproject.org/patches/v3/01-v3-d-frontend-dmd.patch.xz gcc/d/dfrontend/aav.c| 193 + gcc/d/dfrontend/aav.h| 19 + gcc/d/dfrontend/access.c | 670 +++ gcc/d/dfrontend/aggregate.h | 342 ++ gcc/d/dfrontend/aliasthis.c | 158 + gcc/d/dfrontend/aliasthis.h | 39 + gcc/d/dfrontend/apply.c | 145 + gcc/d/dfrontend/argtypes.c | 502 ++ gcc/d/dfrontend/array.h | 237 + gcc/d/dfrontend/arrayop.c| 639 +++ gcc/d/dfrontend/arraytypes.h | 71 + gcc/d/dfrontend/attrib.c | 1599 +++ gcc/d/dfrontend/attrib.h | 278 ++ gcc/d/dfrontend/blockexit.c | 503 ++ gcc/d/dfrontend/boostlicense.txt | 23 + gcc/d/dfrontend/canthrow.c | 318 ++ gcc/d/dfrontend/checkedint.c | 564 +++ gcc/d/dfrontend/checkedint.h | 24 + gcc/d/dfrontend/clone.c | 1235 + gcc/d/dfrontend/complex_t.h | 75 + gcc/d/dfrontend/cond.c | 376 ++ gcc/d/dfrontend/cond.h | 111 + gcc/d/dfrontend/constfold.c | 1950 gcc/d/dfrontend/cppmangle.c | 2001 gcc/d/dfrontend/ctfe.h | 279 ++ gcc/d/dfrontend/ctfeexpr.c | 2112 + gcc/d/dfrontend/ctfloat.h| 51 + gcc/d/dfrontend/dcast.c | 3841 +++ gcc/d/dfrontend/dclass.c | 1947 gcc/d/dfrontend/declaration.c| 2568 ++ gcc/d/dfrontend/declaration.h| 902 gcc/d/dfrontend/delegatize.c | 212 + gcc/d/dfrontend/denum.c | 726 +++ gcc/d/dfrontend/dimport.c| 501 ++ gcc/d/dfrontend/dinterpret.c | 7009 gcc/d/dfrontend/dmacro.c | 468 ++ gcc/d/dfrontend/dmangle.c| 897 gcc/d/dfrontend/dmodule.c| 1427 ++ gcc/d/dfrontend/doc.c| 2803 +++ gcc/d/dfrontend/doc.h| 22 + gcc/d/dfrontend/dscope.c | 741 +++ gcc/d/dfrontend/dstruct.c| 1472 ++ gcc/d/dfrontend/dsymbol.c| 1796 +++ gcc/d/dfrontend/dsymbol.h| 416 ++ gcc/d/dfrontend/dtemplate.c | 8703 ++ gcc/d/dfrontend/dversion.c | 199 + gcc/d/dfrontend/entity.c | 2393 ++ gcc/d/dfrontend/enum.h | 102 + gcc/d/dfrontend/errors.h | 55 + gcc/d/dfrontend/escape.c | 1152 + gcc/d/dfrontend/expression.c | 7009 gcc/d/dfrontend/expression.h | 1561 +++ gcc/d/dfrontend/expressionsem.c | 8840 +++ gcc/d/dfrontend/file.c | 266 ++ gcc/d/dfrontend/file.h | 62 + gcc/d/dfrontend/filename.c | 672 +++ gcc/d/dfrontend/filename.h | 59 + gcc/d/dfrontend/func.c | 5667 +++ gcc/d/dfrontend/globals.h| 334 ++ gcc/d/dfrontend/hash.h | 75 + gcc/d/dfrontend/hdrgen.c | 3461 ++ gcc/d/dfrontend/hdrgen.h | 51 + gcc/d/dfrontend/identifier.c | 191 + gcc/d/dfrontend/identifier.h | 57 + gcc/d/dfrontend/idgen.c | 493 ++ gcc/d/dfrontend/impcnvgen.c | 600 +++ gcc/d/dfrontend/imphint.c| 73 + gcc/d/dfrontend/import.h | 69 + gcc/d/dfrontend/init.c | 288 ++ gcc/d/dfrontend/init.h | 121 + gcc/d/dfrontend/initsem.c| 922 gcc/d/dfrontend/inline.c | 1938 gcc/d/dfrontend/inlinecost.c | 421 ++ gcc/d/dfrontend/intrange.c | 1107 + gcc/d/dfrontend/intrange.h | 153 + gcc/d/dfrontend/json.c | 890 gcc/d/dfrontend/json.h | 26 + gcc/d/dfrontend/lexer.c | 2424 ++ gcc/d/dfrontend/lexer.h | 83 + gcc/d/dfrontend/macro.h | 46 + gcc/d/dfrontend/mars.h | 103 + gcc/d/dfrontend/module.h | 187 + gcc/d/dfrontend/mtype.c | 9517 ++ gcc/d/dfrontend/mtype.h | 942 gcc/d/dfrontend/newdelete.c | 59 + gcc/d/dfrontend/nogc.c | 242 + gcc/d/dfrontend/nspace.c | 229 + gcc/d/dfrontend/nspace.h | 42 + gcc/d/dfrontend/objc.c | 85 + gcc/d/dfrontend/objc.h | 57 + gcc/d/dfrontend/object.h | 68 + gcc/d/dfrontend/opover.c | 1964 gcc/d/dfrontend/optimize.c | 1273 + gcc/d/dfrontend/outbuffer.c | 402 ++ gcc/d/dfrontend/outbuffer.h | 85 + gcc/d/dfrontend/parse.c | 8283 + gcc/d/dfrontend/parse.h | 202 + gcc/d/dfrontend/port.h | 47 + gcc/d/dfrontend/readme.txt | 13 + gcc/d/dfrontend/rmem.c | 163 + gcc/d/dfrontend/rmem.h | 39 + gcc/d/dfrontend/root.h | 27 + gcc/d