This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH 1/13] D: The front-end (DMD) language implementation and license.
- From: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- To: Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw at gdcproject dot org>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 09:12:56 -0600
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/13] D: The front-end (DMD) language implementation and license.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- Authentication-results: ext-mx09.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com
- Authentication-results: ext-mx09.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 CF7454A6EF
- References: <CABOHX+cGS7ZdabANXr8+JOKohNnEJR1mxMJwUjxUekA1gpxvQA@mail.gmail.com>
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