D.gnu is not copyrighted GNU ? so funny! !

[Georg Wrede]

Anders F Björklund wrote:
> Boris Wang wrote:
> 
>> I feel so tired about all these.
> 
> If you mean if the copyright of GDC is assigned over to the Free
> Software Foundation: it isn't. And it's very possible that Walter is
> not prepared to do this either, for the (essential) DMD parts.

I think we ought to split the DM license. One would be tailored to the 
FSF needs (do I dare say, their wants?), and the other would be a dual 
MIT / QT (or whatever, you all get the picture), license.

> DMD is (C) Digital Mars, and GDC is (C) David Friedman, DMD is
> licensed under GPL v1 and GDC is under GPL v2.

Right! What a mess.

> Thus a careful general would either get an OK from FSF about using
> the name "GNU D Compiler" anyway (since it is using either GPL or a
> GPL-compatible license: zlib/PD, it isn't that remote from the ideals
> of the rest of GCC ?)

I've (unfortunately) personally met RMS, and we had a long talk about 
various subjects. End result: it'd behoove us to get a coherent, 
on-the-surface -- timid-looking proposition, and we should serve it with 
enough fanfare and drum roll to get sufficient publicity, and still(!) 
somehow create an atmosphere of utmost respect and humility. (On the 
very verge of crawling.)

Nerds: this is _politics_ (at its, er, profoundest).

> Or maybe start planning falling back on e.g. "GDC D Compiler" ? (I
> hope that it doesn't ever go this far, but you never know)
> 
> For now, I am using "GNU D Compiler" with vendor(GNU) myself.

Yes, a backup plan is dearly needed here. (Sun Tsu, Macchiavelli, etc. 
You know, those guys weren't _always_ wrong!)

And often, just having the backup plan, makes it obsolete. (But, IMHO, 
by Bob, if you don't have such a plan, boy are you gonna need it!!)