Re: Question about code licensing

[Jerry Quinn <jlquinn at optonline dot net>]

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