This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH v3 1/14] D: The front-end (DMD) language implementation and license.
- From: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- To: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw at gdcproject dot org>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Walter Bright <walter at digitalmars dot com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 17:58:08 -0600
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/14] D: The front-end (DMD) language implementation and license.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- Authentication-results: ext-mx01.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com
- Authentication-results: ext-mx01.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=law at redhat dot com
- Dmarc-filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com BEDEC154B8C
- References: <CABOHX+cXG+KfBvbnocBb5+HYDDEeQyxS1iR5vE7pNRHGZ4PfBQ@mail.gmail.com> <169aba44-4e73-d66a-5444-e7cdd9d3ca8c@redhat.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1710032135300.8372@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
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