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 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 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 1/13] D: The front-end (DMD) language implementation and license.
On 9/11/2017 10:26 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote: On 11 September 2017 at 17:12, Jeff Law wrote: On 05/28/2017 03:02 PM, Iain Buclaw wrote: (Sorry, repost as I rushed the first one a bit). This patch adds the DMD front-end proper and license (Boost) files, comprised of a lexer, parser, and semantic analyzer. Split 1/4 Gzipped because of size limitations. So for 1/13, these are all bits that are maintained on github and we're just a downstream user, right? Meaning I don't need to do a deep dive in this patch within the series, right? Does this stuff get bound into GCC? The reason I ask is the files are under the Boost license with ownership by Digital Mars. While we often have a fair amount of leeway with runtime systems, we may not have the same kind of license/ownership leeway with things that are actually part of the compiler itself. Did the discussions between the FSF, Digital Mars and Walter touch in these issues at all? Have you received any guidance from the parties on this issue? Is there any way this stuff could be a separate executable or DSO? That might make things easier on the licensing front. Jeff I am under the impression that Walter had assigned copyrights of the DMD frontend to the FSF in 2011. The license change to Boost came about in 2014, all core maintainers of DMD did copyright assignments to Digital Mars as a prerequisite for the transition. Walter can you confirm the above is the case? Yes. I would be making an assumption here that there are no problems given the current arrangement as I understand it, but would be best to check this with the FSF legal be sure. Iain.
