On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 21:32:25 +0200, "Mikael Morin" wrote: > I personally see no problem gfortran being reused in pathscale's compiler as > long as pathscale's contribution is libre (free). It can even improve code > quality to make gfortran backend independant (probably not much as the IR > generation is quite separated already, but who knows?), and that would give us > an open64 (this one is a "really free" compiler I think) backend at the same > time. Not bad.
Be careful, open64 is not completely "libre". The license is GPLv2 with a funny special remark about intellectual property licenses: "Further, this software is distributed without any warranty that it is free of the rightful claim of any third person regarding infringement or the like. Any license provided herein, whether implied or otherwise, applies only to this software file. Patent licenses, if any, provided herein do not apply to combinations of this program with other software, or any other product whatsoever." Whether this extra clause is a valid addition, I don't know. Not a lawyer, etc. But I'd bet a box of wine of a good vintage that this is incompatible with GPLv3 that is the current license for gfortran. If so, you can't glue a recent gfortran on top of the open64/pathscale/Rice/... back end. Back porting gfortran code into an older, GPLv2 licensed g95 is also not possible without permission from the FSF. On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 01:30:17 +0700, Christopher Bergström wrote: > # Possibly more important than either of the two points above > 3) I'd like to see a larger Fortran community grow out of gfortran. > (This of course largely depends on if the contributors are more > interested in keeping it locked up to gcc or increasing Fortran > adoption.) It is not a question of personal interests and "keeping it locked up". You make it sound as if gfortran contributors are blocking your Bigger Plan for the Fortran community. Reality is that gfortran has helped ensure that this community still exists at all. Gfortran is largely the result of quite altruistic behavior of engineers and scientists with little or no background in computer science to work around "you guys" commercial compiler vendors. So please don't come here insinuating that gfortran contributors put their own interests before that of the Fortran community. Had you put the Cray front end out on a BSD license or donated it to the FSF, instead of locking it up behind a shady modified GPLv2, then there wouldn't even have been a need for a completely new GNU Fortran front end. Contributors to gfortran agree to assign copyright for their contributions to the FSF in exchange for a perpetual license to do as they see fit with their own contributions (including re-licensing to 3rd a party). What you seem to be asking for, is that all gfortran contributors are tracked and that they all agree to re-license their contributions under a license that suits your needs. For what it's worth, I have absolutely no intention to do so. I find the whole idea offensive, especially given the history of Pathscale and of g95. Ciao! Steven
