On 25 October 2017 at 03:06, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 10/18/2017 01:33 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote: >> On 6 October 2017 at 14:51, Ian Lance Taylor <i...@golang.org> wrote: >>> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 1:34 AM, Iain Buclaw <ibuc...@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 >
OK, I'll cc in Donald. Walter/Andrei, the ball may be in your court here if there's any copyright problems. Regards Iain.
