D compiler as part of GCC

[Brad Roberts]

On 1/24/2010 11:34 AM, Jesse Phillips wrote:
> Jerry Quinn wrote:
> 
>> I think you're slightly incorrect, Brad.  DigitalMars still owns the copyright to the original source (call it copy A).  A fork (called copy B) is donated to the FSF.   DigitalMars still gets to make changes to copy A and license them as it sees fit.  Copy B is part of the GCC codebase and would evolve separately.
>>
>> Moving changes between them would require the same kind of donation process as the original transfer.  Folks making changes to the DMD FE would have to contribute those changes to FSF as well to get them into copy B and vice versa.
> 
> As best I could tell there were two options, the one Brad was referring
> to[1], and the one you asked about.
> 
> 
>> In the end, the language spec should be the thing that unifies the D community rather than the adhoc definition provided by a particular front end implementation.  It's just a matter of how to get there.
> 
> I think Brad was refering to the "donation" process that is required for
> propogating changes from DM to GCC and visa versa. Since GCC will be
> using the same front end, it would make since that patches should be
> applied to both reducing duplicate effort in fixing bugs.
> 
> I think that at this time, contributers to the front end would not have
> a problem with making these "donations." However in the feature, you
> might see more people contributing to GCC and not want to donate it for
> GPL/Artistic... And when that happens I don't think Walter would care
> that GCC is getting more attention.
> 
> 
> 1. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-01/msg00432.html

The key issue:  Can one piece of code have two copyrights on it.  I'm no lawyer,
but I'm almost certain the answer is NO.

That's the question that Walter asked to have clarified, but that's not the
question that was asked.  Asking the gcc developers is also a bad idea since
they're not lawyers.  The only way to really handle this correctly is to have
lawyers do the question asking of lawyers.  Having lay people (including myself)
as intermediaries and interpreters is just wrong.

The rest is details about dealing with code under multiple licenses and
transferring changes that are licensed differently between the two code bases.

That clarify anything?

Later,
Brad