Re: [PING][PATCH v3 1/14] D: The front-end (DMD) language implementation and license.

[Iain Buclaw]

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.

[Iain Buclaw]

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.

[Iain Buclaw]

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.

[Iain Buclaw]

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.

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

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.

[Iain Buclaw]

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.

[Walter Bright]

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.

[Iain Buclaw]

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.

[Jeff Law]

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.

[Jeff Law]

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.

[Iain Buclaw]

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.

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

Thanks, Ian! -- Andrei

Re: [PATCH v3 1/14] D: The front-end (DMD) language implementation and license.

[Ian Lance Taylor]

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.

[Walter Bright]

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.

[Iain Buclaw]

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.

[Walter Bright]

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.

[Iain Buclaw]

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.

[Joseph Myers]

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.

[Jeff Law]

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.

[Iain Buclaw]

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 +