Re: [PATCH v3 1/14] D: The front-end (DMD) language implementation and license.

[Walter Bright <walter@digitalmars.com>]

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.