D being talked about at gcc.gnu.org

[Brad Roberts]

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006, John Reimer wrote:
> Brad Roberts wrote:
> > On Tue, 21 Mar 2006, clayasaurus wrote:
> > 
> > > I wonder if anyone has ever seen this link? Sorry if it has been brought
> > > up
> > > before.
> > > 
> > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-11/msg00541.html
> > 
> > Yup.. subject has been brought up several times.  The problem is to be
> > integrated into the official gnu gcc source tree copyright has to be signed
> > over to the fsf.  That's a showstopper, unfortunatly.  IMHO, that's a
> > draconian policy, but it's RMS's right to set those policies for software
> > under the FSF umbrella no matter how much I think it hurts/sucks.
> > 
> > Thankfully, building GDC out of tree like it is today is very very easy.
> > 
> > Later,
> > Brad
> 
> 
> If the synesis software license is the only thing keeping gdc from gcc
> integration (as the responder's post implies), then that's not much to worry
> about, is it?  Get GDC working with Ares and everything should be fine.  I
> don't think Sean Kelly allows code with that kind of license to reside in
> Ares.
> 
> The poster seemed to indicate that the problem was only in the license of the
> current runtime.
> 
> -JJR

He was only pointing out _a_ problem, not the only one.  The license 
issues do need to be worked out.  Files at issue:

./phobos/etc/c/recls/*
./phobos/etc/c/stlsoft/*
./phobos/std/loader.d
./phobos/std/mmfile.d
./phobos/std/openrj.d
./phobos/std/recls.d
./phobos/std/windows/registry.d

The first two are likely to be dropped from phobos, based on other threads 
elsewhere.  The rest need to be worked out still.

However, even if they are, the copyright issue remains.  Everyone who's 
submitted code would have to assign copyright to the fsf.  That includes, 
dmd, phobos, and the gdc glue layers.  So.. convince Walter first since he 
owns the most. ;)

Once those two issues are worked out, there's probably some smaller ones, 
but the road would be largely paved.

Later,
Brad