Re: Question about code licensing
I think the main reason is that DMD front end sources are dual licensed with GPL and Artistic License. The DMD backend is not under an open source license (personal use only), so the Artistic License is how the two are integrated. The fork is required to allow DMD to continue under its current license scheme. It also means that fixes to the GCC front end would not be copyable to the DMD front end going forward. Strictly speaking, that's not true. Even if the submitter would still be required to have copyright assignment for the FSF, they could be copyable to the DMD front-end _as long as the submitter himself sends them for inclusion there too_. This is the practical significance of the license grantback from the FSF to the author. I'm not sure whether it suffices to otherwise specify the intention to release the changes under the dual license in the message, and I don't want to imply in any way that this is possible since IANAL. That said, 1) I don't think the FSF would be very happy; 2) the question still stands of whether/how to assign copyright to the FSF for changes before the inclusion in the gcc.gnu.org repository. A related topic is this: when is the copyright assigned to the FSF for a particular patch---for example, when the patch is posted or when it is committed?(*) In other words, do I have to ask the poster for permission if I want to get into GCC a patch that was sent to the mailing list but never committed? (*) And how does this change when the submitter doesn't have write access to the repository)? Paolo
Re: Question about code licensing
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 07:00:44AM -0800, Paolo Bonzini wrote: I think the main reason is that DMD front end sources are dual licensed with GPL and Artistic License. The DMD backend is not under an open source license (personal use only), so the Artistic License is how the two are integrated. The fork is required to allow DMD to continue under its current license scheme. It also means that fixes to the GCC front end would not be copyable to the DMD front end going forward. Strictly speaking, that's not true. Even if the submitter would still be required to have copyright assignment for the FSF, they could be copyable to the DMD front-end _as long as the submitter himself sends them for inclusion there too_. This is the practical significance of the license grantback from the FSF to the author. This is getting off-topic for this list. Still, if this were the plan (and I don't know whether it is or not), I think that the FSF would reject it, because it would implicitly ask all GCC developers to help out with a proprietary product. There would also be a huge conflict-of-interest issue if the official maintainer of the D front end were in a position to accept or reject patches based not on their technical merit, but on whether the contributor agrees to separately contribute them under the dual-license scheme, and his/her employer had an interest in this issue.
Re: Question about code licensing
Strictly speaking, that's not true. Even if the submitter would still be required to have copyright assignment for the FSF, they could be copyable to the DMD front-end _as long as the submitter himself sends them for inclusion there too_. This is the practical significance of the license grantback from the FSF to the author. This is getting off-topic for this list. Still, if this were the plan (and I don't know whether it is or not), I think that the FSF would reject it, because it would implicitly ask all GCC developers to help out with a proprietary product. Yes, this is what I meant by the FSF not liking it. There would also be a huge conflict-of-interest issue if the official maintainer of the D front end were in a position to accept or reject patches based not on their technical merit, but on whether the contributor agrees to separately contribute them under the dual-license scheme, and his/her employer had an interest in this issue. This only makes it worse. Paolo
Re: Question about code licensing
Jerry Quinn wrote: Hi, folks, There is renewed interest in getting a D compiler into the GCC sources. The most direct route for this to happen is to use the existing Digital Mars DMD front end. The current DMD front end code is GPL licensed, and copyright is owned by Digital Mars. If they were to fork the source, and contribute that fork under the current license of GCC, do they still possess the freedom to continue to do what they wish with the original code? The copyright assignment to FSF allows the original copyright holder to do whatever they wish with the code.
Re: Question about code licensing
On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 20:17 -0800, Joe Buck wrote: On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 05:31:03PM -0800, Jerry Quinn wrote: There is renewed interest in getting a D compiler into the GCC sources. The most direct route for this to happen is to use the existing Digital Mars DMD front end. The current DMD front end code is GPL licensed, and copyright is owned by Digital Mars. If they were to fork the source, and contribute that fork under the current license of GCC, do they still possess the freedom to continue to do what they wish with the original code? The standard FSF contribution paperwork assigns copyright to the FSF and then grants back a license to the contributor to do whatever they want with the original code (continue to develop it, distribute under other terms, embed in proprietary products -- not sure about any restrictions). I'm not sure whether that would work for what they want to do or not. If it would, it's easy. Otherwise they might be able to make some other arrangement with the FSF. Ideally, something could be worked out so they wouldn't feel the need to continue to maintain a fork. It's not very efficient. No, it's not efficient. I think the main reason is that DMD front end sources are dual licensed with GPL and Artistic License. The DMD backend is not under an open source license (personal use only), so the Artistic License is how the two are integrated. The fork is required to allow DMD to continue under its current license scheme. It also means that fixes to the GCC front end would not be copyable to the DMD front end going forward. Jerry
Re: Question about code licensing
The current DMD front end code is GPL licensed, and copyright is owned by Digital Mars. If they were to fork the source, and contribute that fork under the current license of GCC, do they still possess the freedom to continue to do what they wish with the original code? Yes.
Re: Question about code licensing
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 05:31:03PM -0800, Jerry Quinn wrote: There is renewed interest in getting a D compiler into the GCC sources. The most direct route for this to happen is to use the existing Digital Mars DMD front end. The current DMD front end code is GPL licensed, and copyright is owned by Digital Mars. If they were to fork the source, and contribute that fork under the current license of GCC, do they still possess the freedom to continue to do what they wish with the original code? The standard FSF contribution paperwork assigns copyright to the FSF and then grants back a license to the contributor to do whatever they want with the original code (continue to develop it, distribute under other terms, embed in proprietary products -- not sure about any restrictions). I'm not sure whether that would work for what they want to do or not. If it would, it's easy. Otherwise they might be able to make some other arrangement with the FSF. Ideally, something could be worked out so they wouldn't feel the need to continue to maintain a fork. It's not very efficient.
