On 10/6/2017 1:34 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
On 6 October 2017 at 02:57, Walter Bright <wal...@digitalmars.com> wrote:
On 10/5/2017 3:59 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
On 3 October 2017 at 23:36, Joseph Myers <jos...@codesourcery.com> 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.
