On 17 February 2018 at 16:08, Iain Buclaw <ibuc...@gdcproject.org> wrote: > 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 >> > > > 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. Iain.
