On 10/24/2017 4:58 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 10/03/2017 03:36 PM, Joseph Myers 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.
Right. But for the copy distributed in GCC we should have FSF ownership
and a standard GCC copyright. Anything else would seem to require FSF
approval, particularly for the compiler proper (as opposed to the
runtime systems where we have looser requirements).
I'm certainly not comfortable going outside the box here without SC
and/or FSF approval.
Jeff
Iain has my approval to change the copyright and licenses as required by the
FSF, but as a fork. I.e. the stuff the D Language Foundation and Digital Mars
releases, like DMD, will remain as is.
--
Walter Bright
*Digital Mars*
C, C++, D and Javascript compilers
