[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 <ibuclaw@gdcproject.org> wrote:
> On 17 February 2018 at 16:08, Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw@gdcproject.org> wrote:
>> On 25 October 2017 at 03:06, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> On 10/18/2017 01:33 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>>>> On 6 October 2017 at 14:51, Ian Lance Taylor <iant@golang.org> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 1:34 AM, Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw@gdcproject.org> 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.