* [PATCH v3 1/14] D: The front-end (DMD) language implementation and license. @ 2017-10-02 8:45 Iain Buclaw 2017-10-03 19:59 ` Jeff Law 0 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread From: Iain Buclaw @ 2017-10-02 8:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jeff Law; +Cc: gcc-patches, Walter Bright Changes since previous are just merge latest 2.076 release. Uploaded patch to my ftp due to size limitations. Regards Iain. --- ftp://ftp.gdcproject.org/patches/v3/01-v3-d-frontend-dmd.patch.xz gcc/d/dfrontend/aav.c | 193 + gcc/d/dfrontend/aav.h | 19 + gcc/d/dfrontend/access.c | 670 +++ gcc/d/dfrontend/aggregate.h | 342 ++ gcc/d/dfrontend/aliasthis.c | 158 + gcc/d/dfrontend/aliasthis.h | 39 + gcc/d/dfrontend/apply.c | 145 + gcc/d/dfrontend/argtypes.c | 502 ++ gcc/d/dfrontend/array.h | 237 + gcc/d/dfrontend/arrayop.c | 639 +++ gcc/d/dfrontend/arraytypes.h | 71 + gcc/d/dfrontend/attrib.c | 1599 +++++++ gcc/d/dfrontend/attrib.h | 278 ++ gcc/d/dfrontend/blockexit.c | 503 ++ gcc/d/dfrontend/boostlicense.txt | 23 + gcc/d/dfrontend/canthrow.c | 318 ++ gcc/d/dfrontend/checkedint.c | 564 +++ gcc/d/dfrontend/checkedint.h | 24 + gcc/d/dfrontend/clone.c | 1235 +++++ gcc/d/dfrontend/complex_t.h | 75 + gcc/d/dfrontend/cond.c | 376 ++ gcc/d/dfrontend/cond.h | 111 + gcc/d/dfrontend/constfold.c | 1950 ++++++++ gcc/d/dfrontend/cppmangle.c | 2001 ++++++++ gcc/d/dfrontend/ctfe.h | 279 ++ gcc/d/dfrontend/ctfeexpr.c | 2112 +++++++++ gcc/d/dfrontend/ctfloat.h | 51 + gcc/d/dfrontend/dcast.c | 3841 +++++++++++++++ gcc/d/dfrontend/dclass.c | 1947 ++++++++ gcc/d/dfrontend/declaration.c | 2568 ++++++++++ gcc/d/dfrontend/declaration.h | 902 ++++ gcc/d/dfrontend/delegatize.c | 212 + gcc/d/dfrontend/denum.c | 726 +++ gcc/d/dfrontend/dimport.c | 501 ++ gcc/d/dfrontend/dinterpret.c | 7009 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ gcc/d/dfrontend/dmacro.c | 468 ++ gcc/d/dfrontend/dmangle.c | 897 ++++ gcc/d/dfrontend/dmodule.c | 1427 ++++++ gcc/d/dfrontend/doc.c | 2803 +++++++++++ gcc/d/dfrontend/doc.h | 22 + gcc/d/dfrontend/dscope.c | 741 +++ gcc/d/dfrontend/dstruct.c | 1472 ++++++ gcc/d/dfrontend/dsymbol.c | 1796 +++++++ gcc/d/dfrontend/dsymbol.h | 416 ++ gcc/d/dfrontend/dtemplate.c | 8703 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ gcc/d/dfrontend/dversion.c | 199 + gcc/d/dfrontend/entity.c | 2393 ++++++++++ gcc/d/dfrontend/enum.h | 102 + gcc/d/dfrontend/errors.h | 55 + gcc/d/dfrontend/escape.c | 1152 +++++ gcc/d/dfrontend/expression.c | 7009 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ gcc/d/dfrontend/expression.h | 1561 +++++++ gcc/d/dfrontend/expressionsem.c | 8840 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ gcc/d/dfrontend/file.c | 266 ++ gcc/d/dfrontend/file.h | 62 + gcc/d/dfrontend/filename.c | 672 +++ gcc/d/dfrontend/filename.h | 59 + gcc/d/dfrontend/func.c | 5667 +++++++++++++++++++++++ gcc/d/dfrontend/globals.h | 334 ++ gcc/d/dfrontend/hash.h | 75 + gcc/d/dfrontend/hdrgen.c | 3461 ++++++++++++++ gcc/d/dfrontend/hdrgen.h | 51 + gcc/d/dfrontend/identifier.c | 191 + gcc/d/dfrontend/identifier.h | 57 + gcc/d/dfrontend/idgen.c | 493 ++ gcc/d/dfrontend/impcnvgen.c | 600 +++ gcc/d/dfrontend/imphint.c | 73 + gcc/d/dfrontend/import.h | 69 + gcc/d/dfrontend/init.c | 288 ++ gcc/d/dfrontend/init.h | 121 + gcc/d/dfrontend/initsem.c | 922 ++++ gcc/d/dfrontend/inline.c | 1938 ++++++++ gcc/d/dfrontend/inlinecost.c | 421 ++ gcc/d/dfrontend/intrange.c | 1107 +++++ gcc/d/dfrontend/intrange.h | 153 + gcc/d/dfrontend/json.c | 890 ++++ gcc/d/dfrontend/json.h | 26 + gcc/d/dfrontend/lexer.c | 2424 ++++++++++ gcc/d/dfrontend/lexer.h | 83 + gcc/d/dfrontend/macro.h | 46 + gcc/d/dfrontend/mars.h | 103 + gcc/d/dfrontend/module.h | 187 + gcc/d/dfrontend/mtype.c | 9517 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ gcc/d/dfrontend/mtype.h | 942 ++++ gcc/d/dfrontend/newdelete.c | 59 + gcc/d/dfrontend/nogc.c | 242 + gcc/d/dfrontend/nspace.c | 229 + gcc/d/dfrontend/nspace.h | 42 + gcc/d/dfrontend/objc.c | 85 + gcc/d/dfrontend/objc.h | 57 + gcc/d/dfrontend/object.h | 68 + gcc/d/dfrontend/opover.c | 1964 ++++++++ gcc/d/dfrontend/optimize.c | 1273 +++++ gcc/d/dfrontend/outbuffer.c | 402 ++ gcc/d/dfrontend/outbuffer.h | 85 + gcc/d/dfrontend/parse.c | 8283 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ gcc/d/dfrontend/parse.h | 202 + gcc/d/dfrontend/port.h | 47 + gcc/d/dfrontend/readme.txt | 13 + gcc/d/dfrontend/rmem.c | 163 + gcc/d/dfrontend/rmem.h | 39 + gcc/d/dfrontend/root.h | 27 + gcc/d/dfrontend/rootobject.c | 50 + gcc/d/dfrontend/safe.c | 80 + gcc/d/dfrontend/sapply.c | 157 + gcc/d/dfrontend/scope.h | 165 + gcc/d/dfrontend/sideeffect.c | 440 ++ gcc/d/dfrontend/speller.c | 295 ++ gcc/d/dfrontend/speller.h | 15 + gcc/d/dfrontend/statement.c | 1656 +++++++ gcc/d/dfrontend/statement.h | 784 ++++ gcc/d/dfrontend/statementsem.c | 3630 +++++++++++++++ gcc/d/dfrontend/staticassert.c | 104 + gcc/d/dfrontend/staticassert.h | 40 + gcc/d/dfrontend/staticcond.c | 67 + gcc/d/dfrontend/stringtable.c | 201 + gcc/d/dfrontend/stringtable.h | 65 + gcc/d/dfrontend/target.h | 82 + gcc/d/dfrontend/template.h | 402 ++ gcc/d/dfrontend/tokens.c | 484 ++ gcc/d/dfrontend/tokens.h | 234 + gcc/d/dfrontend/traits.c | 1476 ++++++ gcc/d/dfrontend/typesem.c | 124 + gcc/d/dfrontend/unittests.c | 27 + gcc/d/dfrontend/utf.c | 305 ++ gcc/d/dfrontend/utf.h | 121 + gcc/d/dfrontend/utils.c | 122 + gcc/d/dfrontend/version.h | 53 + gcc/d/dfrontend/visitor.h | 605 +++ 129 files changed, 128638 insertions(+) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/14] D: The front-end (DMD) language implementation and license. 2017-10-02 8:45 [PATCH v3 1/14] D: The front-end (DMD) language implementation and license Iain Buclaw @ 2017-10-03 19:59 ` Jeff Law 2017-10-03 21:36 ` Joseph Myers 0 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread From: Jeff Law @ 2017-10-03 19:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Iain Buclaw; +Cc: gcc-patches, Walter Bright On 10/02/2017 02:45 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote: > Changes since previous are just merge latest 2.076 release. > > Uploaded patch to my ftp due to size limitations. So if the code was assigned by Walter to the FSF back in 2011 (per your message on Sep 11 and Walter's reply on Sep 11) then the copyright notices seem totally wrong. For example dfrontend/aav.c: /* 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. I'd really like to get the licensing issues and copyright notices settled before I dig into this further. Jeff ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/14] D: The front-end (DMD) language implementation and license. 2017-10-03 19:59 ` Jeff Law @ 2017-10-03 21:36 ` Joseph Myers 2017-10-05 10:59 ` Iain Buclaw 2017-10-25 0:27 ` Jeff Law 0 siblings, 2 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Joseph Myers @ 2017-10-03 21:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jeff Law; +Cc: Iain Buclaw, gcc-patches, Walter Bright 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. -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/14] D: The front-end (DMD) language implementation and license. 2017-10-03 21:36 ` Joseph Myers @ 2017-10-05 10:59 ` Iain Buclaw 2017-10-06 0:57 ` Walter Bright 2017-10-25 0:27 ` Jeff Law 1 sibling, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread From: Iain Buclaw @ 2017-10-05 10:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Walter Bright Cc: Jeff Law, gcc-patches, Joseph Myers, Walter Bright, Andrei Alexandrescu On 3 October 2017 at 23:36, Joseph Myers <joseph@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? Jeff, I'm no legal, so I can't comment on it. Maybe there's someone from the FSF who be able to confirm? I'll cc in Andrei as well, so the D language foundation is in on this. Regards, Iain. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/14] D: The front-end (DMD) language implementation and license. 2017-10-05 10:59 ` Iain Buclaw @ 2017-10-06 0:57 ` Walter Bright 2017-10-06 8:34 ` Iain Buclaw 0 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread From: Walter Bright @ 2017-10-06 0:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Iain Buclaw Cc: Jeff Law, gcc-patches, Joseph Myers, Walter Bright, Andrei Alexandrescu On 10/5/2017 3:59 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote: > On 3 October 2017 at 23:36, Joseph Myers <joseph@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. > > Jeff, I'm no legal, so I can't comment on it. Maybe there's someone > from the FSF who be able to confirm? > > I'll cc in Andrei as well, so the D language foundation is in on this. > > Regards, > Iain. > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/14] D: The front-end (DMD) language implementation and license. 2017-10-06 0:57 ` Walter Bright @ 2017-10-06 8:34 ` Iain Buclaw 2017-10-06 8:44 ` Walter Bright 2017-10-06 12:51 ` Ian Lance Taylor 0 siblings, 2 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Iain Buclaw @ 2017-10-06 8:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Walter Bright Cc: Jeff Law, gcc-patches, Joseph Myers, Walter Bright, Andrei Alexandrescu On 6 October 2017 at 02:57, Walter Bright <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote: > > > On 10/5/2017 3:59 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote: >> >> On 3 October 2017 at 23:36, Joseph Myers <joseph@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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/14] D: The front-end (DMD) language implementation and license. 2017-10-06 8:34 ` Iain Buclaw @ 2017-10-06 8:44 ` Walter Bright 2017-10-06 12:51 ` Ian Lance Taylor 1 sibling, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Walter Bright @ 2017-10-06 8:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Iain Buclaw Cc: Jeff Law, gcc-patches, Joseph Myers, Walter Bright, Andrei Alexandrescu On 10/6/2017 1:34 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote: > On 6 October 2017 at 02:57, Walter Bright <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote: >> >> >> On 10/5/2017 3:59 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote: >>> >>> On 3 October 2017 at 23:36, Joseph Myers <joseph@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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/14] D: The front-end (DMD) language implementation and license. 2017-10-06 8:34 ` Iain Buclaw 2017-10-06 8:44 ` Walter Bright @ 2017-10-06 12:51 ` Ian Lance Taylor 2017-10-06 12:52 ` Andrei Alexandrescu 2017-10-18 7:35 ` Iain Buclaw 1 sibling, 2 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Ian Lance Taylor @ 2017-10-06 12:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Iain Buclaw Cc: Walter Bright, Jeff Law, gcc-patches, Joseph Myers, Walter Bright, Andrei Alexandrescu On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 1:34 AM, Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw@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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/14] D: The front-end (DMD) language implementation and license. 2017-10-06 12:51 ` Ian Lance Taylor @ 2017-10-06 12:52 ` Andrei Alexandrescu 2017-10-18 7:35 ` Iain Buclaw 1 sibling, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Andrei Alexandrescu @ 2017-10-06 12:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ian Lance Taylor Cc: Iain Buclaw, Walter Bright, Jeff Law, gcc-patches, Joseph Myers, Walter Bright Thanks, Ian! -- Andrei ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/14] D: The front-end (DMD) language implementation and license. 2017-10-06 12:51 ` Ian Lance Taylor 2017-10-06 12:52 ` Andrei Alexandrescu @ 2017-10-18 7:35 ` Iain Buclaw 2017-10-25 1:26 ` Jeff Law 1 sibling, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread From: Iain Buclaw @ 2017-10-18 7:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ian Lance Taylor Cc: Walter Bright, Jeff Law, gcc-patches, Joseph Myers, Walter Bright, Andrei Alexandrescu On 6 October 2017 at 14:51, Ian Lance Taylor <iant@golang.org> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 1:34 AM, Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw@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. Regards Iain. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/14] D: The front-end (DMD) language implementation and license. 2017-10-18 7:35 ` Iain Buclaw @ 2017-10-25 1:26 ` Jeff Law 2017-10-25 20:27 ` Iain Buclaw ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Jeff Law @ 2017-10-25 1:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Iain Buclaw, Ian Lance Taylor Cc: Walter Bright, gcc-patches, Joseph Myers, Walter Bright, Andrei Alexandrescu On 10/18/2017 01:33 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote: > On 6 October 2017 at 14:51, Ian Lance Taylor <iant@golang.org> wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 1:34 AM, Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw@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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/14] D: The front-end (DMD) language implementation and license. 2017-10-25 1:26 ` Jeff Law @ 2017-10-25 20:27 ` Iain Buclaw 2017-11-06 18:49 ` Iain Buclaw 2018-02-17 15:08 ` Iain Buclaw 2 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Iain Buclaw @ 2017-10-25 20:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jeff Law Cc: Ian Lance Taylor, Walter Bright, gcc-patches, Joseph Myers, Walter Bright, Andrei Alexandrescu, donald, David Edelsohn On 25 October 2017 at 03:06, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> wrote: > On 10/18/2017 01:33 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote: >> On 6 October 2017 at 14:51, Ian Lance Taylor <iant@golang.org> wrote: >>> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 1:34 AM, Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw@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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/14] D: The front-end (DMD) language implementation and license. 2017-10-25 1:26 ` Jeff Law 2017-10-25 20:27 ` Iain Buclaw @ 2017-11-06 18:49 ` Iain Buclaw 2017-11-13 7:42 ` Andrei Alexandrescu 2018-02-17 15:08 ` Iain Buclaw 2 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread From: Iain Buclaw @ 2017-11-06 18:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jeff Law Cc: Ian Lance Taylor, Walter Bright, gcc-patches, Joseph Myers, Walter Bright, Andrei Alexandrescu On 25 October 2017 at 03:06, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> wrote: > On 10/18/2017 01:33 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote: >> On 6 October 2017 at 14:51, Ian Lance Taylor <iant@golang.org> wrote: >>> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 1:34 AM, Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw@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 > Assuming then, that we'll ship with all copyright notices amended to be copyright FSF and GPL licensed - that can be fixed up in a later patch - is there anything further needed to push this review process further? Iain. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/14] D: The front-end (DMD) language implementation and license. 2017-11-06 18:49 ` Iain Buclaw @ 2017-11-13 7:42 ` Andrei Alexandrescu 2017-11-21 9:02 ` Iain Buclaw 0 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread From: Andrei Alexandrescu @ 2017-11-13 7:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Iain Buclaw, Jeff Law Cc: Ian Lance Taylor, Walter Bright, gcc-patches, Joseph Myers, Walter Bright On 11/06/2017 01:46 PM, Iain Buclaw wrote: > On 25 October 2017 at 03:06, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> wrote: >> On 10/18/2017 01:33 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote: >>> On 6 October 2017 at 14:51, Ian Lance Taylor <iant@golang.org> wrote: >>>> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 1:34 AM, Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw@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 >> > > Assuming then, that we'll ship with all copyright notices amended to > be copyright FSF and GPL licensed - that can be fixed up in a later > patch - is there anything further needed to push this review process > further? > > Iain. Hi Jeff, Ian, Joseph: thanks for your consideration. Is there anything we can do on our side to move things forward? Please advise, thanks! Andrei ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/14] D: The front-end (DMD) language implementation and license. 2017-11-13 7:42 ` Andrei Alexandrescu @ 2017-11-21 9:02 ` Iain Buclaw 0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Iain Buclaw @ 2017-11-21 9:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andrei Alexandrescu Cc: Jeff Law, Ian Lance Taylor, Walter Bright, gcc-patches, Joseph Myers, Walter Bright On 13 November 2017 at 00:20, Andrei Alexandrescu <andrei@erdani.com> wrote: > On 11/06/2017 01:46 PM, Iain Buclaw wrote: >> >> On 25 October 2017 at 03:06, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>> On 10/18/2017 01:33 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote: >>>> >>>> On 6 October 2017 at 14:51, Ian Lance Taylor <iant@golang.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 1:34 AM, Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw@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 >>> >> >> Assuming then, that we'll ship with all copyright notices amended to >> be copyright FSF and GPL licensed - that can be fixed up in a later >> patch - is there anything further needed to push this review process >> further? >> >> Iain. > > > Hi Jeff, Ian, Joseph: thanks for your consideration. Is there anything we > can do on our side to move things forward? Please advise, thanks! > > Andrei > Ping? I was recently made aware that upstream DMD has a pending patch to switch copyright ownership of all its sources to "The D Language Foundation", however it now seems blocked pending on the outcome here. Iain. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/14] D: The front-end (DMD) language implementation and license. 2017-10-25 1:26 ` Jeff Law 2017-10-25 20:27 ` Iain Buclaw 2017-11-06 18:49 ` Iain Buclaw @ 2018-02-17 15:08 ` Iain Buclaw 2 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Iain Buclaw @ 2018-02-17 15:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jeff Law; +Cc: Ian Lance Taylor, gcc-patches, Joseph Myers On 25 October 2017 at 03:06, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> wrote: > On 10/18/2017 01:33 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote: >> On 6 October 2017 at 14:51, Ian Lance Taylor <iant@golang.org> wrote: >>> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 1:34 AM, Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw@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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/14] D: The front-end (DMD) language implementation and license. 2017-10-03 21:36 ` Joseph Myers 2017-10-05 10:59 ` Iain Buclaw @ 2017-10-25 0:27 ` Jeff Law 2017-11-04 19:52 ` Walter Bright 1 sibling, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread From: Jeff Law @ 2017-10-25 0:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Joseph Myers; +Cc: Iain Buclaw, gcc-patches, Walter Bright 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/14] D: The front-end (DMD) language implementation and license. 2017-10-25 0:27 ` Jeff Law @ 2017-11-04 19:52 ` Walter Bright 0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Walter Bright @ 2017-11-04 19:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jeff Law, Joseph Myers; +Cc: Iain Buclaw, gcc-patches 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2018-02-17 15:08 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 18+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2017-10-02 8:45 [PATCH v3 1/14] D: The front-end (DMD) language implementation and license Iain Buclaw 2017-10-03 19:59 ` Jeff Law 2017-10-03 21:36 ` Joseph Myers 2017-10-05 10:59 ` Iain Buclaw 2017-10-06 0:57 ` Walter Bright 2017-10-06 8:34 ` Iain Buclaw 2017-10-06 8:44 ` Walter Bright 2017-10-06 12:51 ` Ian Lance Taylor 2017-10-06 12:52 ` Andrei Alexandrescu 2017-10-18 7:35 ` Iain Buclaw 2017-10-25 1:26 ` Jeff Law 2017-10-25 20:27 ` Iain Buclaw 2017-11-06 18:49 ` Iain Buclaw 2017-11-13 7:42 ` Andrei Alexandrescu 2017-11-21 9:02 ` Iain Buclaw 2018-02-17 15:08 ` Iain Buclaw 2017-10-25 0:27 ` Jeff Law 2017-11-04 19:52 ` Walter Bright
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).